UMADEVI M.J. Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 and 2 owned an item of property measuring 14 cents. Out of the said 14 cents, they transferred 7 cents to petitioners 3 and 4. The property held by petitioners 1 and 2 was originally a paddy land, but converted long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Since the property was shown in the revenue records as paddy land, for the purpose of making use of the same for other purposes, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an application on 11.11.2017 to the first respondent under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) for permission to make use of the property for other purposes. Since the said application was not considered by the first respondent, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred W.P.(C) No.38461 of 2017 before this Court, and in terms of the directions issued in the judgment in the said writ petition, the first respondent granted the permission sought for by petitioners 1 and 2. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the first respondent in this regard. In Ext.P5, the first respondent has, however, stated that the grant is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay the fees payable in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Petitioners 1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid condition in Ext.P5 order, in W.P.(C) No.38392 of 2018 and in terms of Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside the condition aforesaid. Thereupon, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an application for re-assessment of the land before the second respondent under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the second respondent re-assessing the land on the application preferred by petitioners 1 and 2. However, in Ext.P8 order, the second respondent has also imposed a condition that the petitioners shall pay the fees payable in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Insofar as the condition aforesaid was one set aside by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, petitioners 1 and 2 instituted proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the second respondent. The second respondent then suo motu revised Ext.P8 order and issued Ext.P9 order in its place. Earlier in Ext.P8 order, the second respondent has in fact ordered correction of the classification of the land in the revenue records as dry land/purayidam and the grievance of petitioners 1 and 2 against the order was concerning the direction issued by the second respondent to effect payment of the fees under Section 27A of the Act. However, when Ext.P9 order was passed, the second respondent has ordered to restore the classification of the land again as wet land and make an endorsement in the revenue records as regards Ext.P5 order issued by the first respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 order.

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

(3.) Insofar as the petitioners have been granted permission by the competent authority under the Land Utilisation Order to make use of the property for other purposes, the second respondent, the statutory authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act is under obligation to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher tax for such converted land and 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 [ See Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2020 (5) KLT 403].