AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R.Ravi, J.
The petitioner owns 13.59 Ares of land in Sy.No.22/1-2-2-2 of Manjalloor Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. According to the petitioner, the property has been lying as a dry land for the last several decades and was neither a paddy land nor a wet land on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 2008 Act). The petitioner submits that initially the land was classified as 'conversion' and later it was excluded from the data bank. The property was part of 16.19 Ares of land which belonged to one Smt.Rajamma, who had obtained the same as per sale deed No.1508/1972 of SRO, Thodupuzha. In 1992, the said Rajamma applied under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order for short), seeking permission to convert the land as 'purayidam'. On 27.11.1992, the 1st respondent issued order No.K.Dis./8894/92/A3 granting permission to the predecessor of the petitioner to convert the land as a dry land. Rajamma transferred her title and possession in favour of Smt.Suja Xavier as per sale deed No.14/1993 dated 15.1.1993 of SRO, Kalloorkkad. The document is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner submits that on the strength of the KLU order issued on 27.11.1992, the said Smt.Suja Xavier converted the 16.19 Ares of land as dry land. It is further submitted that 2.60 cents out of the said land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening of the Muvattupuzha-Thodupuzha Road and it is the balance extent which has vested in the petitioner as per Ext.P3 sale deed. It is stated in the writ petition that since Smt.Suja Xavier had lost the copy of the KLU Order issued in 1992, the same was not made over to the petitioner at the time of execution of Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that an application was submitted on 24.10.2019 in Form No.6 on the bona fide belief that even in respect of land converted as dry land as per KLU Order, a formal permission under the 2008 Act was required to be obtained. The 1st respondent issued a notice on 24.7.2020 on the application submitted by the petitioner, directing him to remit the prescribed amount. The petitioner submits that no amount was remitted as directed, since his land had been converted much prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act and he was not liable to pay any amount. The petitioner further submits that he had applied to the Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent for a copy of the KLU Order dated 27.11.1992 and that he received a reply dated 13.4.2020, stating that File No.K.Dis./8894/92/A3 had been destroyed. Ext.P4 is the copy of the said reply. Since the land had been converted as a dry land much before the 2008 Act came into force, there was a requirement for a reassessment under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, 1961 with respect to the land, treating the land as a dry land. The petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent on 10.8.2020, seeking reassessment and reclassification of his land. Ext.P5 is the application. When no orders were issued, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.16878/2020 before this Court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 17.11.2020 directing the 1st respondent to verify whether the claim regarding the KLU Order is genuine and take a decision thereafter. Ext.P6 is the judgment of this Court. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 letter dated 25.2.2021 stating that as per the records, the previous Thandapper number relating to the properties belonging to the petitioner was T.P.No.2558 and the owner is recorded as Rajamma. It is further stated that the total extent of land is 16.19 Ares. It is further stated that the remarks column shows that the land had been permitted to be converted as dry land as per order No.K.Dis./8894/92/A3 dated 27.11.1992, but no information or documents evidencing the endorsement are available in the Office of the Village Officer, Manjalloor that no further lands are available in the said Thandapper numbe. Ext.P8 is the copy of the relevant page of the Thandapper Register relating to the petitioner's property. The 1st respondent thereafter issued Ext.P9 order dated 19.2.2021 to the petitioner informing that it was not possible to decide on the genuineness of the KLU Order solely based on the prior title deeds produced by the petitioner and the entry in the Thandapper Register, as the petitioner has not produced the original or copy of the order No.K.Dis./8894/92/A3 and no information regarding the said file is available in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. A reading of Ext.P9 in entirety would only make one wonder, whether an attempt is being made to make it appear that the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court has been complied with. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Pending the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application in Form A under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Ext.P10 is the copy of the application and Ext.P11 is the acknowledgment showing receipt of Ext.P10 in the Office of the 1st respondent.
A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. As per the statement, the petitioner was required to produce the original or copy of the KLU Order and it is only since he failed to produce the same that he is required to pay the amount of Rs.4,23,360/- as fee for the purpose of conversion. The statement says that the description in the title cannot be considered as an authoritative one. Regarding the extract of the Thandapper Register, it is stated that the same cannot be considered as a valid proof, since it does not contain the date and initials of the Officer who made the endorsement.
The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, which is more in the nature of an argument against the contentions of the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out in the reply that the observations regarding the entries in Ext.P2 title deed are totally uncalled for. The petitioner points out that in 1993, when reference to the KLU Order was made in the registered document, none of the parties could have anticipated that at a later point of time, the 2008 Act will be enacted. There was absolutely no reason to site a KLU Order in the sale deed, unless such a document was existing. The above contention is also supported by the reply received by the petitioner to the query under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P4 clearly says that on verification it was noticed that the file referred to has been destroyed. The very fact that the file has been destroyed is ample evidence to show that such a file was in existence. Possibly, for the purpose of reducing the unnecessary files and increasing the available space in the concerned office, the files would have been destroyed following the rules of procedure. This will not mean that no such order was ever issued. The contemporaneous documents clearly show existence of such an order and as such there is no reason to doubt the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had been issued with an order under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order on 27.11.1992.
In Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and Ors. reported in [2020 (6) KHC 770], this Court held that where the nature of the land was changed after obtaining an order under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, a fresh assessment has to be done for the purpose of the Kerala Land Tax Act and Rules. The judgment further says that the procedure as envisaged in Section 27A(3) of the 2008 Act need not be gone through in such cases. In Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat & Ors. v. Mariyumma and Anr. reported in [2015 (3) KHC 19], a Division Bench of this Court held that in cases where the land is converted prior to the enforcement of the 2008 Act and the entry in the data bank is also corrected as converted land, what is required is a fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act. In the case on hand, the property was initially shown as converted land and later it was removed from the data bank. In Ranjith M. v. State of Kerala reported in [2020 (5) KHC 313], this Court held that the benefit of a KLU Order issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present owner, will entail to the benefit of the present owner who cannot be asked to pay any additional amounts under Section 27A for seeking additional entries in the BTR showing the nature of the land as 'purayidam'. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the above decisions and many other decisions to support his contentions regarding his entitlement to get the property reassessed.
I find considerable force in the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As already held, the existence of the KLU Order No.K.Dis./8894/92/A3 dated 27.11.1992 cannot be denied by the respondents. Ext.P2 read with Ext.P8 clearly shows the existence of the order. It is relevant that Ext.P8 relates to Thandapper account of Smt.Rajamma who sold the property to Smt.Suja Xavier as early as in 1993. The mere fact that the person who had noted the issuance of the KLU Order permitting conversion of the land as dry land has not affixed his initials, will not in any way affect the genuineness of Ext.P8 and the entries in it. Coupled with the fact that the file was existing in the Office and was later destroyed, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had obtained a KLU Order and converted the land much prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act.
The writ petition is hence allowed. Ext.P9 order is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue orders reassessing and reclassifying the petitioner's 13.59 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.22/1-2-2-2 of Manjalloor Village as 'purayidam' in the revenue records and there will be a further direction to the 3rd respondent to make the consequential corrections in the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register to the same effect. Necessary orders shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.