Manoj Itty vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The petitioner has sought for a direction to re-assess and re-classify his property mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner has averred in the

writ petition that he is the owner of 8.49 Ares of land in Resurvey Nos.8/2-1, 8/2-1-8, 8/2-1-9 and 9/2-5 in Block No.99 of Vazhappilly East Village in

Changanassary Taluk. The said property been described as 'Purayidam/dry land' in the Basic Tax Register on the basis of Ext.P1 order issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. In Ext.P1 the RDO had directed the 1st

respondent to make necessary changes in the revenue records. Nevertheless, the property has not been re-assessed. The petitioner's predecessor in

interest had filed an application seeking conversion of 4.40 Acres of land in Resurvey No.8-2 in Block No.99 of the Vazhappilly East Village. During

the pendency of the application, she transferred 47 Ares of land in favour of 'M/s.Vani Constructions'. The said firm transferred the properties to the

petitioner's immediate predecessor in interest from whom the petitioner purchased the property. This Court by its judgment in WP(C)No.30223 of

2016 had directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the application filed for exclusion of the land from the Data Bank. The petitioner

contends that there has to be an assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act in respect of the petitioner's property. The petitioner has

not moved for any orders under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, (Act 28 of 2008) for the simple

reason that he had purchased the property which was converted as 'garden land', prior to the coming into force of Act 28 of 2008. In respect of an

adjacent property, this Court by Ext.P8 judgment has directed the 1st respondent to re-assess the land as 'purayidam'. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

This Court in Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT, 262] has gone on to hold that if a holder of a land, which is not included in

the data bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008, prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order, before coming into force of Act 28 of 2008, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions

cannot be pressed in to service against such a land.

In the case on hand, the petitioner's property is covered by Ext.P1 order issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, much prior to the

coming into force of Act 28 of 2008.

Taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the afore-cited decision and Ext.P8 judgment passed by this Court in respect of an

identical neighbouring property, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for an identical relief.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to ascertain whether the land of the petitioner is covered by Ext.P1 order

and if so, re-assess the same, treating it as 'purayidam/dry land' and issue appropriate directing the officers concerned to change the classification of

the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as 'dry land'. The needful exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent, in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.