MARY ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The property belonging to the petitioner is situated in two survey numbers, was classified as "Nilam" in the BTR even though it was converted in the year 1987 and 1988 pursuant to Exts.P-2 and P-3 orders issued by the 3rd respondent-RDO under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and was categorized as "purayidam" in the data bank. The petitioner sought for change in the BTR vide Ext.P-5 application dated 22.01.2014 submitted before the 3rd respondent-RDO. The 3rd respondent RDO instead of referring the application to the 4 th respondent-Tahsildar to make a fresh assessment of the land in the BTR under the Kerala Land Tax Act sought for a report of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, who reported the fact that the property was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thereafter, the RDO referred the matter to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, who vide Ext.P-8 order rejected Ext.P-5 application on the ground that there are no W.P(C) No.6503 of 2020 laws for change in BTR and it could be done in particular cases as per the judgments of this Court and that the property could be cultivated with the same cultivation that was being conducted in the property immediately three years prior to Exts.P-2 and P-3 orders. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayers:

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

(3.) It is beyond any dispute that the subject property has been converted as garden land or purayidam, long prior to 12.08.2008 (which the date of coming into force of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). As a matter of fact, it is common ground that the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in the Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 has already granted permission for conversion of the subject properties to be used for various purposes other than agricultural purposes, as per Ext.P-2 proceedings issued as early as on 12.10.1987 and Ext.P-3 proceedings issued as early as on 18.03.1988. Thereafter, now the petitioner has sought for fresh assessment of the subject property under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the revenue official concerned, in order to reclassify the land as garden land or purayidam by making additional entries in the Basic Tax Register, instead of the earlier BTR entries as Nilam or Paddy land, as the case may be. If so happened that such an application should have been filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent-Tahsildar concerned. But it appears that the petitioner has filed Ext.P-5 application dated 22.01.2014 before the 3rd respondent-RDO, who did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the said plea, going by the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. Pursuant to Ext.P-5 application dated 22.01.2014, the 3rd respondent-RDO had called for a report of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, who has furnished a favourable report as per Ext.P-6 report dated 28.01.2014. Thereafter, for reasons not known to this Court, the 3rd respondent-RDO has adopted the same procedure of referring Ext.P-5 application to the 2 nd respondent-District Collector for decision in the matter. It is beyond any dispute that the 2 nd respondent- District Collector does not have any original jurisdiction in the matter for taking action under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. Now the 2nd respondent-District Collector has considered the matter on merits and has issued an order in the nature of the impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 20.01.2015 stating that the plea of the petitioner for re-assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 cannot be acceded to and the 2 nd respondent has even gone to the extraneous extent in Ext.P-8 that there are no enabling provisions in law to grant the request of the petitioner for fresh assessment of the subject property for land taxation purposes for such reclassification of the subject property in the BTR, etc.