SHYAMALA SATHYAPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 5.43 acres in Peruvayal Village. The land of the petitioner was a paddy land and the predecessor of the petitioner reclaimed the same and converted it as a dry land after obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order during the year 1995 itself. Ext.P1 is the order obtained by the predecessor of the petitioner in this regard. It is stated by the petitioner that, of late, when the petitioner approached the fourth respondent for reassessing the land under the Land Tax Act and to make appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land, she was made to believe that she has to obtain permission from the competent authority under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act), and accordingly, she preferred an application for the said purpose. It is stated by the petitioner that later, when she realized that it was unnecessary for her to obtain permission of the competent authority under Section 27A of the Act, she preferred a fresh application for reassessment of the land and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. Ext.P11 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this regard. It is alleged by the petitioner that Ext.P11 application is not being attended to by the fourth respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) In Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein including Section 27A of the Act cannot be pressed into service in respect of such a land. In the case on hand, as noted, the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained permission under the Land Utilization Order as early as on 3.1.1995. In other words, Section 27A of the Act cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. In Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the fourth respondent is directed to reassess the land of the petitioner, after satisfying that the same is a portion of the land covered by Ext.P1 order, treating the same as Purayidam/dry land, in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry land, without insisting compliance of the provisions of the Act including Sections 27A and 27C. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.