Allowed

Mrs. Vimala Menon, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Kerala HC11 Aug 2023WP(C)/10284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the failure of the Tahsildar to reassess land tax following a non-agricultural usage permit under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The Court held that statutory orders permitting land conversion mandate a fresh tax assessment and directed the Tahsildar to process the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Tahsildar directed to consider Form-A application and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Mrs. Vimala Menon, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10284 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MRS. VIMALA MENON, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O MR. AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, 28/2357, AMBADY RETREAT, CHILAVANNOOR DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MUHAMMED ANWAR K.M, AGED 52, S/O MEETHIYAN NINA, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, WEST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA, PIN - 683110 2 AMBADY KRISHNA MENON,MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. AMBADY TOURIST ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., 39/2658, 2"" FLOOR, AMBADY'S PANTHIYIL TOWERS, WARRIAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED ANWAR K.M, AGED 53, S/O MEETHIYAN NINA, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, WEST PARAVOOR TALUK, KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA, PIN - 683110 BY ADVS. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR MUHAMMED ASHIQUE P.K.MINIMOLE A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHIFIRST FLOOR, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682001

¶10

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513

¶11

BY SMT. DEVISREE R., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P(C) No.10284 of 2023

¶14

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2023

¶17

The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the alleged omission of the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar to entertain the application submitted by the petitioners for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register.

¶18

The petitioners are owners in possession of land in Survey Nos.421/1-1-2-5, 421/3-1-4-3, 421/3-1-56, 421/3-2-5, 421/3-3-4, 421/5-16, 421/5-22, 424/1-2-5 and 450/1A1-2-2 of Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit the petitioners to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P1 order invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and permitted the petitioners to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.

¶19

W.P(C) No.10284 of 2023 3

¶20

The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Ext.P1 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2006, the land of the petitioners is not re-assessed for fixing the rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioners is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioners submitted Ext.P5 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the land tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶21

The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P1 proceedings are of the year 2011. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P1 KLU Order are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained before allowing an application for reassessment of Basic Tax.

¶22

W.P(C) No.10284 of 2023 4

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. ` 6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448]. This Court held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the Basic Tax Register showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

¶24

A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612 ] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut-off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of

¶25

W.P(C) No.10284 of 2023 5

¶26

Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

¶27

As the nature of the land of the petitioners have changed pursuant to passing of statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the petitioners.

¶28

The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P6 order of the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar is set aside. The 2^nd respondentTahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P5 Form-A application submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶31

SSS

¶32

W.P(C) No.10284 of 2023

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10284/2023

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF T RDO,	HE	ORDER O FORT	F KOC	THE 1ST HI IN
	PROCEEDING 01.03.2011	S NUMB .	ER	K-4934/	2011	DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 09.08.2011	OF IN WPC	TH NO.	E JUDGM 18092/2	ENT 010	DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 579 OF 201	OF THE 7 DATED	JU 13.	DGEMENT 12.2018	IN	WPC NO.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY 12.10.2021	OF IN WPC	TH NO.	E JUDGM 13815/2	ENT 019	DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY FORM A APP OF LAND TA	OF THE LICATIO X DATED	APP N F 28.	LICATION OR FRESH 02.2023	AL AS	ONG WITH SESSMENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 2ND	NOT RES	ICE DATED PONDENT	03	.03.2023

Mrs. Vimala Menon, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vimala Menon, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anish K N Vs Vishnu Raj. P., IAS

Jancy Johny Vs Vishnu Raj. P., IAS

Mr.Wilson Mathew Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

J.B. Granites, Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Aparna Sasi Menon, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Jihinu M.N Vs 1. Nedumangad Municipality