This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C No.2112 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court by accused Nos. 2 to 6 challenging the cognizance in CC 960/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram. The underlying case involves alleged offences under Sections 120B, 403, 405, 406, 408, 415, 417, 418, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from a dispute between a complainant-de facto proprietor of Hospicare Medical Equipments and a first accused Ajith P. Nair, who allegedly misappropriated funds after joining the complainant’s business and later started his own venture dealing in medical devices. The petitioners, Healthium Medtech Ltd. (formerly Healthium Medtech Pvt. Ltd.) and its top officers, contend that they merely supplied devices to the first accused and had no exclusive supply agreement with the complainant; they argue that even if the allegations were true, no offense would lie against them and any grievance would be civil in nature. The respondent states—through the complainant—that the petitioners aided the first accused by supplying devices in breach of an understanding. The High Court, applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC) and noting that the allegations primarily target the first accused, held that the petitioners’ conduct does not disclose an offense. Relying on these principles, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the Crl.M.C. and terminating further action in CC 960/2021.
In Crl.M.C.6771/2017, the sole accused P G Sujatha challenges FIR No.2181/2016 and the final report in Crime No.2181/2016 lodged at Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 353 IPC. The petitioner, a 1st Grade Draughtsman with the Kerala Water Authority, alleges that the incident involved Pink Police women escorting her, but no culpable intention to deter public servants from discharging their duties is established. The prosecution’s case describes how on 8.12.2016 the petitioner allegedly assaulted female police officials while they were on duty, leading to a final report under Sec.353 IPC. The petitioner argues that the alleged acts occurred when the Pink Police were not on duty, and the FIR and final report were a counterblast after she complained of harassment; she points to inconsistencies in timing (8:10–10:10 p.m. versus 6:30 p.m.) and to the police forcibly seizing her phone and bag. The High Court, applying its inherent power under CrPC 482 and Article 226, and drawing on Rajiv Thapar and Bhajan Lal, concludes that the defence materials show sound, reasonable facts that would displace the prosecution’s case. It holds the matter falls within Bhajan Lal’s categories (1), (3), and (7), and quashes all further proceedings in CC No.2209/2016 and the FIR/final report. The petition is allowed; the proceedings are quashed.
WA 48/2020 and connected cases (led batch) This batch of writ appeals, disposed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenges notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) seeking to reopen escaped turnover for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The core issue is whether amendments introduced by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 to Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act—substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ and extending the period for reopening—operate retrospectively or prospectively, especially in the context of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and the repeal of KVAT with effect from 22.06.2017 and the simultaneous enactment of the KGST/ GST framework. The court systematically examines commencement vs operation of amendments, the saving of accrued rights, and the legislative competence to amend the KVAT Act post-CAA. It surveys a spectrum of authorities on retrospective legislation (Calcutta Discount Co., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Baiju A A, Jyothi Traders, Mohit Minerals, etc.), distinguishes between subsections and provisos, and considers the impact on vested rights. The judgment ultimately holds that the 2017 amendment to Section 25(1) is prospective and not retrospective, and that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso also lacks competence to revive pre-2017 rights. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Thirumullappulli Devaswom Karalmanna, a Malabar Devaswom Board-managed temple, sought a mandamus to compel the State to release 3.35 acres of land (1.25 acres in Sy.No.65/2 and 2.1 acres in Sy.No.65/1, Cherpulassery village) held in the temple’s register under HR&CE Act but recorded in revenue records as puramboke land and vested in the Government after surrender for an irrigation project. The temple contends the land houses essential temple features (temple pond and Althara) and is necessary for rituals; Ext.P10 shows a 2001 application for assignment. The Tahsildar’s statement and government records (Ext.R1(a) G.O.40/2020/Rev.) indicate the land is puramboke and cannot be transferred, with Cherpulassery village records listing 65/2 as puramboke kulam and 65/1 as puramboke thodu. The petition argues a legal right under Article 226 to have the land assigned to the temple; it relies on HR&CE Act Section 25 and prior temple register entries. The court, citing Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, held that mandamus cannot be issued absent a statutory duty and a legal right, and that once land is surrendered and vested with the Government as puramboke, title cannot remain with the temple. The writ petition was dismissed.
The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard MACA No. 90 of 2018 on 28 February 2023 in a motor-accident appeal challenging an award under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of a nine-month-old child in 2013. The judgment surveys a lineage of precedents on the notional income for child fatalities under Section 163A and the impact of Schedule II amendments that never materialised. Early guidance, from Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy (and subsequent amendments discussions), established a framework guiding notional income as living standards and inflation evolved. The court cites R.K. Malik, Kishan Gopal, Kurvan Ansari, and Meena Devi to illustrate rising notional incomes over time, while noting Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. for a higher benchmark (Rs.36,000) of a12.5-year-old child in 2012. The insurer’s counsel urged following Kurvan Ansari and Meena Devi; the appellants sought the higher Ramachandrappa standard. The court ultimately adopts Rs.30,000 per annum as notional income for the nine-month-old deceased, applying Schedule II’s multiplier of 15, resulting in Loss of Dependency of Rs.4,50,000, plus Filial Consortium Rs.40,000 and Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 (Pranay Sethi). Total compensation becomes Rs.5,45,000 with 7% interest, payable within two months. The appeal is allowed in part, with the insurer directed to deposit the amount accordingly.
WP(C) Nos. 9287/2023 & 10192/2023 These writ petitions, filed by private medical college managements, seek directions to finalise the fee structure for the 2022-23 academic year. The court recalls a Division Bench decision in Kerala Self Financing Dental College v. State of Kerala & Ors (2007) (4) KLT 809) which lays down a time-bound, procedural framework for fee fixation: colleges must submit proposals by 15 November of the preceding academic year; the Supervisory Committee may require additional information by 15 December; information must be furnished by 31 December; and final orders should be issued by 15 February. The petitioners contend that despite submitting proposals before the November deadline, the Committee has not finalised the fee. The respondents reply that delays were caused by the petitioners’ failure to provide necessary documents and by litigation over National Medical Commission norms. The court declines to resolve the factual dispute about delay, noting Ext.P7 petitions filed by the petitioners in WP9287 and the absence of a similar Ext.P7 by the WP10192 petitioners, while directing consideration of Ext.P7 if submitted. It directs a hearing on Ext.P7 for WP9287 on 11.04.2023, with orders within two weeks, and invites the WP10192 petitioners to submit a similar representation by 10.04.2023 for consideration by 30.05.2023 (corrected to 2023). The petitions are disposed of accordingly, underscoring adherence to prior jurisprudence on fee fixation.
This writ petition, filed by a large group of employees of The Ponnani Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., seeks mandamus-type relief to secure revised EPF benefits (including pension) from November 1995 onward, in line with a common judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.35217/2016 and connected cases. The petitioners contend that the EPFO should confer the benefits without further delay, and should not be impeded by pendency of other proceedings (RP Nos. 1430-1431/2019 and SLP No.11023/2019 before the Supreme Court). The respondents submit that dedicated processing cells have been set up to handle EPF claims and that compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions will be ensured. The petition was disposed of with an undertaking from the respondents that they will act in terms of the observations and directions in Sunil Kumar (Supra), and that the benefits due to the petitioners shall be disbursed as expeditiously as possible. In effect, the court endorses the ongoing processing arrangements and directs expeditious disbursement in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Sunil Kumar judgment, reframing the petition’s relief in light of the Supreme Court authority.
MACA No. 364/2018; C.O. No. 109/2021 This is a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal appeal and cross-objection arising from OP(MV) No.599 of 2013 concerning the death of Sanju Raj in a scooter collision on 23 January 2013. The insurer challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 23,92,716 as excessive and argued that the award duplicated compensation across heads (notably Rs. 15,12,216 for loss of life and Rs. 2,50,000 for loss of dependency) while funeral expenses and love-and-affection awards were inflated. The claimants contended that the deceased, aged 22, had VHSE certification and apprenticeships (VSSC), with potential on-job earnings (notably Rs. 15,000 monthly) and thus deserved higher compensation for loss of dependency and better recognition of future prospects. The High Court re-evaluated the evidence, fixing notional income at Rs. 10,500 per month and applying a 40% future-prospects addition for a 22-year-old, with a 50% deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 18, yielding Rs. 15,87,600 for loss of dependency. Funeral expenses were corrected to Rs. 15,000, pain and suffering in a death case was excluded, and a loss of estate of Rs. 15,000 (per Pranay Sethi) was considered. The result was a net enhancement of Rs. 1,20,384, with Rs. 3,60,000 to be deducted and Rs. 2,39,616 to be added as enhanced compensation, directing deposit of the balance to respondents with interest, within two months. No costs were awarded.
The appellant, Babu, challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of 750 ml of arrack, seized on 09.10.2002 at Thodupuzha. At trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellate court scrutinized crucial aspects of custody and chain of evidence, focusing on whether the contraband sample actually reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory and whether proper sealations were maintained. Ext. P2 (seizure mahazar) reportedly did not describe the seal affixed to the bottle, and Ext. P5 (forwarding note) lacked the specimen seal, with the space for the seal left blank. The laboratory report (Ext. P6) showed the sample was forwarded on 22.11.2002 and received in court on 23.11.2002, but the Excise Guard who delivered the sample (K. M. Ashraf) and the property/clerical personnel who handled the sample were not examined. Relying on Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, Rajamma v. State of Kerala, and State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, the court held that the lack of seal description, omission to produce the seal specimen, and non-examination of custody personnel undermine the genuineness of the sample and the CA report. Consequently, the conviction cannot stand and the appeal is allowed with acquittal and discharge of the accused.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 6568/2015 and 7960/2015 Two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.M.C. Nos. 6568/2015 and 7960/2015) arise from CC 136/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur, challenging the final report against two Oriental Insurance Company officials for offences under sections 294(b), 506(i) read with section 34 IPC, based on alleged remarks to a defacto complainant in 2014. The petitions argue that, even if Annexure-A3’s allegations are accepted, the offences are not made out: the words attributed are abusive or humiliating but not obscene as defined by law, and there is no clear evidence that they were uttered in a public place or near one, or that the accused intended to cause alarm. The court undertakes a thorough examination of the obscenity doctrine, quoting the Hicklin test and Indian jurisprudence (Chacko, Latheef, Sangeetha Lakshmana) to stress that obscenity requires a tendency to deprave and corrupt, or lascivious elements/arousal of sexual thoughts; mere abusive language is insufficient. It also surveys Section 506(i)’s require- ment of intentional threat to cause alarm (Anto Joseph; Mohammad Wajid). Applying these principles to the facts, the court finds that the allegations do not satisfy 294(b) or 506(i) and that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process, quashing the CC proceedings and allowing the petitions.
V. Thomas, the revision petitioner, challenges the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC 362/2019 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, and the subsequent affirmations by the appellate court. The complainant alleged borrowing Rs. 3,12,000 on 1-4-2019 and two post-dated cheques for Rs. 72,000 and Rs. 2,40,000, respectively, dishonoured for insufficient funds after statutory notice. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,25,000 with a default sentence of three months. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petitioner argues that the courts below erred by not accepting his defence that he had not entered the box to offer evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, and that presumption can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities and by highlighting inconsistencies in the complainant’s case. He also contends that two cheques with different dates and dishonour dates require separate notices under Section 138(b) and two separate CrPC complaints. The respondents contend that revisional courts do not reweigh evidence and that consolidated notices were permissible since details of each cheque were shown, with support from prior decisions. The High Court partly allows the revision: the guilt is affirmed, but the sentence is reduced to one day’s imprisonment and four months to pay the compensation, with four months’ stay on coercive measures.
CRL.M.C. No. 2216 of 2023 JASIM V NASEER, the sole accused in Crime No.41 of 2022 (Excise Range Office, Ernakulam) under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a), (b) and (c), challenges Annexure A3, an order extending the investigation period under section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The 180-day limit for investigation expired on 18.12.2022, and Annexure A3 extended the period by two months. The final report was filed on 13.02.2023, while the bail application was rejected on 05.01.2023. The petitioner argues that Annexure A3 does not satisfy the twin requirements of Section 36A(4): (i) indicating progress in the investigation, and (ii) stating specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days; moreover, non-production of the accused in court when extension was considered, contravening the limits set by CrPC 167. The State counters that the extension complied with statutory language, citing ongoing investigations and the gravity of the contraband, and notes that final report has been filed. The petitioner contends that the indefeasible right to default bail arises on expiry of 180 days and cannot be extinguished by the final report; relying on Supreme Court authority in Sanjay Dutt, Uday Mohanlal Acharya, Bikramjit Singh, and Jigar, the High Court reviews the provisions and precedents, ultimately holding Annexure A3 illegal, quashing it, and directing the Sessions Court to release the petitioner on default bail with conditions including bond, passport surrender, and cooperation with investigation.
WP(C) Nos. 9028/2023 & 9078/2023 These writ petitions challenge a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, to the extent it affects landowners and other interested persons who claim their objections have not been properly considered by the competent authority under Section 3C. Section 3C prescribes, within twenty-one days from publication, that any person interested may object to the land use, in writing, setting out grounds, and that the authority must hear the objector and, after inquiry, may allow or disallow the objections; the order is final. The petitioners contend that the statutory hearing and finality under 3C have not been complied with, and that the objections cannot be thwarted by extraneous directives from project directors, revenue officials, or policy alignment discussions. The respondents submit that alignment considerations are not within the scope of Section 3C and rely on three precedents (Kushala Shetty, Balakrishna Pillai, and Venugopalan P.V.) to justify limiting the 3C hearing to objections rather than alignment or project design. After hearing, the court directs that the competent authority for land acquisition for Vizhinjam-Outer Ring Road shall consider all objections in accordance with law, unfettered by other directions, strictly within Section 3C. The order requires the petitioners to appear on 10.4.2023 at 11:00 A.M. and to produce their objections and this judgment copy for compliance.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 616 of 2018) from OP(MV) 646/2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Manjeri. The appellant, Muhammed Rashid, was a 25-year-old driver who sustained significant injuries in a road traffic collision on 19 December 2013, when the car driven rashly by the 1st respondent collided with the autorickshaw in which he was travelling. The Tribunal awarded Rs 2,40,000 in compensation, well short of the appellant’s claim for Rs 4,00,000. The appeal focuses on two main issues: (i) the computation of notional income for a young worker, and (ii) the adequacy of compensation for pain and suffering and incidental expenses. Although the accident occurred in 2013, the appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa principle to contend for a higher notional income ( Rs 9,000 per month instead of Rs 7,500 ), arguing that this would yield higher compensation for loss of earnings (Rs 54,000 for six months). The Tribunal had not considered disability evidence; the appellant sought medical board assessment for disability. The High Court re-evaluated heads of compensation, awarding Rs 20,000 more for pain and suffering and Rs 10,000 more for bystander expenses, totaling an enhancement of Rs 39,000. It confirmed insurer responsibility to pay third-party claims, with a direction to deposit the enhanced amount, while allowing recovery from the insured. The appeal was allowed. No costs were awarded. The court also directed an ongoing medical examination to assess disability, though no disability certificate was produced.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009 This is a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the acquittal in CC No.39/2005 (Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram) arising from a complaint alleging conspiracy to obtain rebate subsidy by illegal means in the Perumpazhuthoor Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. The defacto complainant (revision petitioner) alleged that Accused 1 and 2, as Secretary and President of the society during 1995–1999, conspired with Accused 3, then Senior Inspector of the Taluk Industries Office, to obtain a rebate subsidy of Rs. 62,860 by falsifying the invoice register, inflating production figures, and including non-existing persons as members. The prosecution claimed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)) and the Indian Penal Code (Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B). The trial court acquitted after examining PWs 1–24 and marking Exts P1–P46 with DWs 1–2 and Exts Ds. The revisional court, following guidance from Indian jurisprudence, held that the revisional power is not an appeal and should not interfere unless the finding is perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on non-consideration or palpable misreading of material. It dismissed the revision, noting absence of perverse findings or materialigniting interference. The court underscored the limited scope of revisional intervention and the need to preserve justice in criminal jurisprudence.
The sole accused, Vinod Kumar @ Kulam Babu, challenges his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC in SC No.596/2012, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The incident concerns burns inflicted on the accused’s wife on the night of 17-18 May 2010, with her death on 25 May 2010 while under treatment. Originally charged under IPC 307 for attempt to cause death, the case was extended to murder after death. The trial court convicted the accused based largely on three dying declarations attributed to the deceased (Exts. P1, P9, and the statement recorded by PW14), along with medical evidence. The defense contends that the victim’s statements were made when she was severely injured, under treatment, and potentially delirious; the hospital records (Ext. P10) show altered consciousness and psychiatric notes, suggesting unreliability and possible tutoring. The prosecution argues the dying declarations are consistent and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, corroborated by hospital records. The Kerala High Court, after evaluating the medical records and the dying declarations, concludes the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to make reliable dying declarations, doubting their genuineness and timing, and finds reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The appeal is allowed and the accused acquitted, to be released forthwith.
This Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No.2217 of 2023) is before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, invoking the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in CC No.303/2021 arising from Crime No.108/2018 of Kainady Police Station. The petitioner, the 5th accused, Fr. Thomas Peeliyanikkal, contends that the allegations concern money transactions and that all respondents have received the entire amount and filed affidavits; a prior quashing in Crl.M.C. No.2183/2023 had fostered an amicable settlement. The Public Prosecutor submits that quashing the petition against the petitioner alone would not be justified and that the court should exercise restraint; respondents state they have no lasting grievance. The High Court surveys the law on quashing non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC, especially in private disputes with civil character arising from commercial transactions or family matters where parties have settled. It cites State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to lay down guiding principles: quashing is permissible where the dispute is civil and settled, not for heinous or public‑interest offences or offences under special statutes, and requires careful scrutiny when potential serious charges (e.g., 307 IPC) may be involved. After considering antecedents and the amicable settlement, the Court holds that continuing the proceedings would be a waste of time and would not serve ends of justice, and accordingly allows the petition. Annexure‑A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 303/2021 are quashed.
CRL.R.P. No. 1272 of 2009 This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence recorded in S.C. No. 490 of 2001 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thalassery, for offences punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. On 28.05.2008, police intercepted a motorcycle; the pillion rider was found in possession of a cardboard box containing Indian-made foreign liquor. The trial court convicted the accused to two years’ simple imprisonment and levied a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on each, with an additional six months’ imprisonment for default. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petition raises several lacunae in the prosecution’s case: (i) samples reportedly were not labelled or properly sealed; (ii) no specimen seal or forwarding-note details; (iii) absence of the guard’s name who sent the sample for examination. The High Court recognizes that revisional jurisdiction is limited but must ensure strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities (Baburaj v. State of Kerala) and that absence of proper procedure can create reasonable doubt (Sathi; Sumathy; Sasidharn; Vijayan; Nadarajan; Kumaran). The court also emphasizes chain-of-custody and the need to correlate lab results with seizure records (Vijayan; Vijay Pandey; Daulat Ram). In this backdrop, the court ultimately allows the revision petition and acquits the petitioners, setting aside the lower courts’ conviction and sentence.
WA Nos. 48/2020; 1562/2019; 2/2020; 314/2020; 323/2020; 324/2020; 328/2020; 332/2020; 333/2020; 339/2020; 342/2020; 343/2020; 361/2020; 365/2020; 379/2020; 383/2020; 385/2020; 394/2020; 398/2020; 399/2020; 400/2020; 402/2020; 412/2020; 431/2020; 437/2020; 447/2020; 448/2020; 449/2020; 451/2020; 459/2020; 463/2020; 467/2020; 475/2020; 477/2020; 480/2020; 481/2020; 487/2020; 490/2020; 497/2020; 512/2020; 514/2020; 516/2020; 518/2020; 520/2020; 539/2020; 540/2020; 541/2020; 542/2020; 551/2020; 562/2020; 567/2020; 568/2020; 569/2020; 571/2020; 574/2020; 580/2020; 587/2020; 589/2020; 591/2020; 596/2020; 606/2020; 607/2020; 611/2020; 615/2020; 617/2020; 621/2020; 628/2020; 629/2020; 630/2020; 643/2020; 652/2020; 662/2020; 669/2020; 703/2020; 722/2020; 742/2020; 785/2020; 877/2020; 892/2020; 912/2020; 986/2020; 1019/2020; 1528/2020; 1558/2020; 3/2021; 7/2021; 8/2021; 10/2021; 48/2021; 51/2021; 52/2021; 75/2021; 94/2021; 98/2021; 99/2021; 117/2021; 142/2021; 143/2021; 245/2021; 284/2021; 1056/2021 This batch judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (S.V. Bhatti, J. and Basant Balaji, J.) delivers a consolidated decision on multiple writ appeals challenging reassessment notices under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and its transition to the GST regime. The core dispute centers on whether amendments to Section 25(1) KVAT, via Kerala Finance Act 2017 (and further changes in 2018), which extended the period within which the State could reopen escaped turnover assessments, operate retrospectively or prospectively, particularly in relation to assessments that had already become time-barred or would become time-barred. The court surveys constitutional and statutory frames, including the CAA 2016, Article 246A, Entry 54 of List II, saving provisions under KGST, and the interplay with the KVAT repeal. It concludes that the substitution of “five years” by six years in Section 25(1), and the corresponding amended third proviso, are prospective in operation, excluding assessment years whose periods had already expired, and that the State lacked competence to extend retroactively via Finance Act 2018. The appeals are dismissed with a broad discussion of contemporaneous case-law (Hajee Shakoor; Calcutta Discount Co.; Jyoti Traders; Mohit Minerals; Baiju A A; Mohit Minerals; Reliance Industries, etc.).
The petitioner, Hotel Sears Pvt. Ltd., approaches the Kerala High Court challenging the omission by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar to entertain Ext. P4 (Form-A) for reassessment of Basic Tax despite an enabling order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Clause 6) permitting non‑agricultural use. The property spans multiple survey numbers in Mutttambalam Village, Kottayam, and was previously described as Nilam in land records even though Ext. P1 (2003) granted permission for non‑agricultural use, including construction. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking reassessment and corresponding entries in the Basic Tax Register. The respondents contend Ext. P1’s veracity must be verified and the current land status ascertained before any reassessment, and that 27A of the 2008 Act or other modern provisions may apply. The court relies on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others (2020) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) to hold that when a LUO enabling order exists, prior entries become redundant and a fresh assessment under Section 6A LTA is required, subject to verification. Ultimately, the court allows the petition, directing the Tahsildar to consider Ext. P4 and pass orders within one month in accordance with law.
