S AIYAPPAN PILLAI, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns a land in Nadama Village. Though the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, it was reclaimed long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). As such, in order to make use of the land for other purposes, the petitioner preferred an application before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, and in terms of Ext.P2 order, the third respondent has granted the permission sought for by the petitioner. Ext.P2 order was, however, subject to the condition that the same would be subject to the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Section 27A was introduced to the Act. Despite the condition aforesaid in Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application before the fifth respondent for re-assessing the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the property. It is alleged by the petitioner that the fifth respondent is not considering Ext.P3 application on account of the condition in Ext.P2. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by the condition incorporated in Ext.P2 order that the same would be subject to the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018.

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

(3.) It is seen from Ext.P2 order that the property of the petitioner was one lying as dry land when the Act came into force. It is on account of the said reason that the application preferred by the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilization Order has been allowed by the competent authority. The question therefore, is as to whether the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order was justified in imposing the condition that the same would be subject to the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018. In Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer,2019 2 KerLT 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, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner preferred application for permission under the Land Utilization Order on 28.07.2017 and Act 29 of 2018 was introduced to the Act only with effect from 30.12.2017. In other words, the provisions of the Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into the service in respect of the land of the petitioner. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 5 KerLT 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 higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register to reflect the true nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam.