DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. THANGAL KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals raise the same question that arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge. The question considered by the learned Single Judge was whether the correction of the Basic Tax Register (BTR) from nilam to purayidam, based on re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, requires compliance with the process of Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' in short). This question was answered in favour of the writ petitioner, who had challenged the action of the Revenue Authorities. There is no dispute to the fact that all these lands were originally classified as nilam in the settlement register. Thereafter, based on a re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, land involved in these cases were classified as purayidam in the re-survey BTR. The nature of the land as on the date of the promulgation of Act 28 of 2008 is not in doubt; it is neither paddy land nor wetland. The change in description of the land from nilam in the settlement register to purayidam in the re-survey BTR form the subject of the challenge.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Indira v. Sub Collector; [2020 (4) KLT 635] took the view that the BTR, as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972, is a vital statutory document, and that the entries therein cannot be simply ignored by the competent Revenue Authority to proceed adversely as against the parties merely on the ground that the settlement register describes the property as nilam or wetland.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that Rule 2(1)(e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('the Rules' in short) was not adverted to in Indira's case(supra) and, therefore, the judgment in Indira's case(supra) cannot be relied on. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 2(1)(e) of the Rules which reads as follows;