MOHAMMED ASHRAF Vs. RANI P. ELDHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforementioned Contempt of Court Case has been filed alleging noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment dated 25.02.2020 in WP(C) No.5446 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) Heard Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/writ petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the respondent, Tahsildar/R4 in the WP(C).

(3.) This Court as per Annexure A1 judgment dated 25.02.2020 in WP(C) No.5446 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein had inter alia ordered that after orders are passed by the respondent RDO on the application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, by the writ petitioner, securing statutory permission for change of user of the subject property, then the petitioner is entitled to have his request considered under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar seeking for reassessment of the subject property and change of classification of the nature of land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), by making additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariumma and another [2015 (2) KLT 516(DB)]. It appears that the RDO concerned had passed the proceedings dated 14.02.2020, allowing the request of the petitioner for change of user of land but imposing an order of condition that he should necessarily pay the amounts as conceived as per Rule 27A(3) of State Act 28 of 2008 read with Rule 12 (9) of the Rules framed thereunder as a condition precedent for getting the benefit of change of user of land. The said proceedings dated 14.02.2020 issued by the RDO to the limited extent it places the abovesaid onerous condition was later separately challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(C) No.10382 of 2020 before this Court. This Court as per judgment dated 27.5.2020 had disposed of the said W.P.(C).No.10382/2020 holding that there is no dispute that the subject property has been converted prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act and further that the petitioner has also filed requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order before the cut off date of 30.12.2007 (the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act) and therefore, it is absolutely illegal and ultra vires that the RDO who has placed an onerous condition that the petitioner should necessarily pay the amounts as conceived as per Section 27A(3) and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court has so ordered that it has been well settled that an application for change of user of land filed in such cases before the cut off date can be considered only in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU order. Only those applications for change of user of land in such cases filed on or after 30.12.2017 (the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act) that could be considered in terms of Section27A and the Rules framed thereunder, in view of the specific legislative mandate contained in Section 30 of the said Act. Accordingly, this Court had quashed the said conditions to pay the amounts under Section 27A(3) and the Rules as imposed in the said proceedings dated 14.02.2020 [Ext.P8 in W.P. (C).No.10382 of 2020] and had directed the RDO to pass orders in the matter without any such condition. There is no dispute that thereafter the RDO has only complied with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 27.05.2020 in W.P(C).No.10382/2020 by passing proceedings dated 03.09.2020 allowing the request of the petitioner for statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order without imposing any such conditions.