PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order dtd. 15/2/2019 passed by the second respondent directing the petitioners to submit application before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is an erroneous direction.

(2.) The case set up in the writ petition is as follows:- The writ petitioners are co-owners in possession of 1 acre 49 cents made up of 9.32 Ares in old Sy.Nos.265 and 49/2, 9.31 Ares in R.S.No.49/3, 9.71 Ares in R.S.No.49/4, 9.31 Ares in R.S.No.49/5, 9.33 Ares in R.S.No.49/6, 9.32 Ares in R.S.No.49/7, 2.38 Ares in R.S.No.49/9 and 2.04 Ares in R.S.No.49/9 of Thekkumbhagam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, obtained as per Sale Deed Nos.2010/11, 2011/11, 2012/11, 2118/11, 2119/11, 2120/11, 2353/11 and 2354/11 of S.R.O.,Thripunithura. The said properties are lying as one plot as reclaimed land with trees, which are more than 40 years old and is a dry land with direct road access with a building therein even before the promulgation of the Act. Therefore, by virtue of the enabling provisions contained under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order'), the writ petitioners sought permission for conversion of the land for other purposes. As per Ext.P1 order dtd. 21/7/2015, the District Collector has permitted to utilise the property under the KLU Order. Thereafter, in the revenue records, the class of the land was shown as "converted dry land more than 10 years back". The petitioners submitted an application dtd. 27/12/2018 before the second respondent for changing the class of land in the revenue records to 'purayidam'. Since the application filed by the petitioners was not considered, they approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.312/2019 and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to finalise the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with the stipulations contained under Sec. 27C of the Act as amended by Act 2018 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and it was further directed that if any application for building permit was submitted by the petitioners, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the Secretary, Thripunithura Municipality taking into account Ext.P1 order of the District Collector and also any order passed by the second respondent. The petitioners submit that the second respondent, instead of complying with the judgment of this Court, passed Ext P3 order with a finding that Sec. 27A of the Act is applicable and directed the petitioners to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioners submit that Sec. 27C of the Act clearly stipulates the procedure by which the changes in the revenue records are to be made. It is the further case of the petitioners that the second respondent-Tahsildar was duty bound to reassess the land tax under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and make necessary entries in the revenue records relating to such land and also to effect changes in the revenue records. Thus, aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent, this writ petition is filed praying for a direction to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent and also for a direction to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Princy Xavier and Sri.Manuvilsan, the Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Thripunithura Municipality.