THOMAS GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- That the paddy field was converted into garden land pursuant to Ext.P1 KLU order issued on 24.03.1997. Ext.P3 building permit was issued on 09.09.2013 which was subsequently renewed on 27.04.2018. Now, Exts.P5 and P7 notices were issued by the second respondent RDO insisting on payment of fees as per Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008. As the petitioners were hard-pressed for money for completion of building and for numbering the buildings, they paid the money covered by Ext.P5 notice. As per Ext.P7 notice, the petitioners have to remit nearly Rs.30 Lakhs. That the petitioners have availed huge loan from the KFC for construction of the building and now they are availing enhanced loan. But due to the pendency of Ext.P7 notice and the insistence of the revenue authorities to remit the amount covered by Ext.P7 notice, the petitioners are not able to take enhanced loan from the KFC. Any more delay will ruin the commercial business of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners seek quashing of Exts.P5 and P7 notices, refund of the money paid as per Ext.P5 notice and a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount as per Exts.P5 and P7 notices in the light to the principles laid down in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer Moovattupuzha, 2019 4 KHC 400 and many other cases of this Court. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, that the petitioners have filed the aforecaptioned writ petition (civil) with the following prayers;

(2.) Heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the subject properties concerned, though continue to be described as "nilam/paddy land" in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), have been converted as "garden land/purayidom" much prior to 12.08.2008 (the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008). Further that the predecessor of the petitioners, who previously owned the subject properties, had filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order on 16.12.1996 before the 2nd respondent RDO for permission for change of user of the land under that statutory provision. Further that the 2nd respondent RDO has thereafter considered the said application dated 16.12.1996 and has issued Ext.P1 proceedings dated 24.03.1997 granting statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order for change of user of the land for construction of industrial unit. Ext.P1 proceedings No.B3. 198/97/B3/K.DIS dated 24.03.1997 issued by the 2nd respondent RDO reads as follows: