2020 (7) TMI 826 - HC - Indian Laws

Making additional entry in the Basic Tax Register on the basis of enabling orders passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 - Direction to applicants to pay 25% of the scheduled fee as enjoined in Sub Rule 17 of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules 2008 as amended in 2018 consequent to the Amendment of Act, 2018 - HELD THAT - Section 27A was brought into force on and with effect from 30.12.2017, to deal with change of nature of unnotified land, thus requiring any owner of an unnotified land desiring to utilise any Paddy land for residential or commercial purpose or for other purpose, to apply to the Revenue Divisional officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed. True a procedure is prescribed there under in the matter of consideration of such an application. Admittedly, the applications were filed by the writ petitioners under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, prior to the aforesaid cut off date. Therefore, the applications so submitted had to be considered by the statutory authority in accordance with the procedure, and terms and conditions contained under the Kerala Land Utilisation order 1967 - none of the provisions contained under Section 27A of Act 2008, which has come into force only with effect from 30.12.2017, has any manner of binding force so far as the facts and circumstances of the appeals are concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the orders passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order have become final and conclusive. Section 27C applies, wherever a part of survey number of subdivision is permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of Act 2008, and in which case, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued. Therefore it is clear that, Section 27C deals with a situation where an order is passed to convert the land as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008. The rest of the provisions there under are consequential to Section 27C(1) and therefore only under the circumstances prescribed under Section 27C(1), the procedure can be followed by the Tahsildar - it is an admitted fact that the application was submitted by the writ petitioners on the basis of the orders secured by them under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Therefore, the provisions of Section 27C have no application. The appellants have not made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Sections 27A and 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 in the context of making additional entries in the Basic Tax Register based on orders secured under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The writ petitioners sought to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register as 'garden land/purayidam' based on orders secured under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, before the amendment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The Tahsildar directed the petitioners to pay 25% of the scheduled fee under the amended Rules. The Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to consider the request without insisting on payments per the amended provisions. The appeals challenged this decision, arguing that Section 27C of the Act, effective from 30.12.2017, must be followed for post-amendment applications. The respondents supported the Single Judge's decision.

Issue 2:
The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 27A and Section 27C of the Act. Section 27A, effective from 30.12.2017, required owners to seek permission for land use changes. However, the writ petitioners had obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, before this date. The Court found that the orders under the earlier law were final and binding. Section 27C deals with changes in records after land conversion under specific Act provisions. As the writ petitioners applied based on the old orders, Section 27C did not apply. The Court cited precedents to support the view that the Tahsildar should have considered the applications under the old law, not the amended provisions.

Issue 3:
The Court referred to judgments like Mariyumma and Renjith George, emphasizing that the Tahsildar's directive for payment based on the amended provisions was legally unsustainable. The Tahsildar should have followed the law as per the old orders. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the statutory authority cannot expand the law's scope by issuing contrary directions. The decision aligned with the legal principles laid down in previous judgments and the clear statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the writ petitioners' applications should have been considered under the old law, not the amended provisions. The Court dismissed the appeals, highlighting the importance of adhering to clear statutory provisions and legal precedents in such matters.