Allowed

Althom Property Developers Private Ltd. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Jan 2023WP(C)/687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that upon obtaining orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting land conversion, revenue officials are bound to reassess Basic Tax rates and update the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar was directed to pass appropriate orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider the applications and pass appropriate orders reassessing the Basic Tax rate within one month.

Althom Property Developers Private Ltd. Vs the District… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 687 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ALTHOM PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD
CIN.U70101KL2008PTC021761
REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/60,
TEMPLE ROAD,WEST HILL P.O, CALICUT KL 673005 IN
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
JACOB KALLUVILA BABU, S/O. K.C.BABU

¶7

BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
P.K.SUBHASH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶10

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR, K.B JACOB ROAD FORT KOCHI , KOCHI, PIN - 682001

¶11

3 THE TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK PART AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK MARINE DRIVE KOCHI, PIN - 682011

¶12

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶13

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2023

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining the application submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register.

¶20

The petitioner is owner of 42.5 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.135/1 of Thrikkakkara SRO, Ernakulam District. The property in question was purchased in the year 2009. The predecessor-in-interest of the land approached the District Collector invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. The District Collector passed Exts.P4 and P5 orders under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation

¶21

Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Exts.P4 and P5 orders were passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2007, the land of the petitioner is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application in Form-A invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

The Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings are of the year 2007. The veracity and the genuineness of Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation

¶26

¶27

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶28

Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained, before re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶31

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 BTR 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.

¶32

¶33

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶34

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 cutoff date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of 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.

¶35

As the nature of the land of the petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a 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 permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the

¶36

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶37

petitioner.

¶38

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider Exts.P6 and P7 and Ext.P9 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon taking into account Exts.P4 and P5 KLU Orders, within a

period of one month.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.687 of 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 687/2023

¶46

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXH` `P1`	`IBITS` `A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED`
		`NO.737/2009 OF THRIKKAKARA SRO,` `ERNAKULAM DATED 23.04.2009`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1765/2009` `OF THRIKKAKARA SRO DATED 28.10.2009`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS` `OF THE DATA BANK AS NO.553 DATED` `5.02.2021`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. L5-` `60765/K.DIS. DATED 15.11.2007 OF THE` `DISTRICT COLLECTOR`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. L5-` `60762/07/K.DIS. OF THE DISTRICT` `COLLECTOR DATED 12.11.2007`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED`
		`BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2022`
		`UNDER SECTION 6 A OF THE KERALA LAND` `TAX ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED` `BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2022`
		`UNDER SECTION 6 A OF THE KERALA LAND` `TAX ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT` `EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 AND` `EXT.P7 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`

Althom Property Developers Private Ltd. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Althom Property Developers Private Ltd. v. the District Collector

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

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Abdul Hakeem Vs Malappuram Municipality

Ameer P.A Vs District Collector

Rajan.K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Mundayadan Chandroth Leela Vs Payyavoor Grama Panchayat

Sunny Gopidas Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad