DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. FR. JOSE UPPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.8645/2020 and 8307/2020 dated 19.03.2020 respectively, whereby, the learned Single Judge directed the Tahsildar(LR), Kanayannur Taluk, Kochi, to immediately take up for consideration the request made by the writ petitioners in their applications, so as to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register, making entries of the properties in question as 'garden land/purayidam', without much delay and at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment and in accordance with the dictum laid down by the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat Vs. Mariyumma 2015(2)KLT 516(DB) and yet another judgment of this court in Tahsildar Vs. Renjith George 2020(1) KHC 865 (DB) , without insisting for any payments made as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008 and the amended Rules. It was further directed that the orders so passed by the Tahsildar shall immediately be communicated to the 3rd respondent Village Officer within one week and the Village Officer was also directed to take consequential steps in the matter without any further delay at any rate within one week thereafter, apparently under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Since the subject matter of the Writ Appeals are common in nature, we heard them together in agreement, and propose to pass this common judgment.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioners have secured orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned as per Section 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to utilize the property for any purpose other than paddy cultivation and agricultural activities. The applications were filed by the writ petitioners before the statutory authority prior to the amendment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008, by which, Sections 27A to 27D were brought into force on and with effect from 30.12.2017. The subject issue leading to the writ petitions arose when the writ petitioners submitted applications for making additional entry in the Basic Tax Register on the basis of enabling orders passed under the the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 as specified above, in terms of the dictum laid down by this court in Mariumma (supra). The Tahsildar on receipt of the said application, has passed orders directing the applicants to pay 25% of the scheduled fee as enjoined in Sub Rule 17 of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Rules 2008 as amended in 2018 consequent to the Amendment of Act , 2018, and further directed the applicants to make an application in that behalf before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and remit the fee as ordered to be paid. Further the Tahsildar held that the applicants are liable to pay land tax in accordance with the modified order.

(3.) The learned Single Judge after considering the issue, has clearly found that the writ petitioners have secured the orders in terms of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967, on the basis of application submitted by them prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017, on which date only, the amended provisions of Act 2008 came into force. It was accordingly that the directions were issued to the Tahsildar and the Village Officer concerned. In the appeals the paramount contention advanced is that, Section 27C of Act 2008, which has come into force on and with effect from 30.12.2017, is to be construed independently of the provisions of Section 27A and therefore, even if an order was secured under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for utilization of the property for a different purpose other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations, Since the application submitted under Section 27C is after the cut off date of 30.12.2017, necessarily the proceedings under Section 27A and Section 27C are bound to be followed, and therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tahsildar directing the writ petitioners to pay 25% of the land value after securing orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer . It is also submitted that, since Section 27C has come into force, merely because an order was secured under the Land Utilization Order 1967, that will not enable the writ petitioners to seek correction of the Basic Tax Register without following the procedure contemplated under Section 27C of act 2008.On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/Writ petitioners advanced arguments fully supporting the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.