2020 (3) TMI 1445 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - respondent has power to pass orders on Exhibit P5 application filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act or not - liability to pay an amount as fees as per the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, brought in by the Amendment Act 29 of 2018 - HELD THAT - The matter in issue is fully covered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents as per the dictum laid down by this Court, more particularly, by the Division Bench of this Court in cases as in THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE AND ORS. VERSUS MARIUMMA AND ORS. 2015 (4) TMI 1353 - KERALA HIGH COURT as well as THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA AND ORS. VERSUS RENJITH GEORGE 2020 (1) TMI 1630 - KERALA HIGH COURT that in a case where favourable orders are obtained by the property holder in terms of the 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for converting the said land as garden land or purayidam, etc., then the property holder is legally entitled to maintain an application under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar, seeking for re-assessment of the subject property in terms of the said provision, so as to make additional entries in the BTR to rightly and properly show the land as garden land or purayidam instead of the previous BTR entries as Nilam or paddy land, etc. It is only to be held that the impugned decision at Ext. P-8 is vitiated both on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but also on the ground of illegality and unreasonableness. Accordingly, Ext. P-8 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector will stand quashed and rescinded. Further it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 2 3 will ensure that Ext. P-5 application is forwarded to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar for appropriate action as aforestated and this shall be done by respondents 2 3, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of authorities under Kerala Land Tax Act for reclassification of land.
2. Validity of Ext. P-8 order rejecting application for fresh assessment.
3. Applicability of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
4. Compliance with enabling provisions for land conversion and re-assessment under Sec. 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of authorities under Kerala Land Tax Act for reclassification of land:
The petitioner's property was converted to garden land prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had granted permission for conversion in 1987 and 1988. The petitioner sought reclassification under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, but filed the application before the RDO instead of the Tahsildar, as required. The District Collector, lacking jurisdiction, rejected the application. The judgment cites precedents where property holders with conversion permissions are entitled to seek re-assessment under Sec. 6A before the Tahsildar. The Ext. P-8 order was deemed illegal and quashed, directing the proper authorities to process the application correctly.

Issue 2: Validity of Ext. P-8 order rejecting application for fresh assessment:
The Ext. P-8 order by the District Collector, rejecting the petitioner's application for re-assessment under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, was found to lack jurisdiction and legality. The order stated there were no provisions to grant the request for reclassification of the land in the Basic Tax Register. The judgment highlighted that the District Collector did not have original jurisdiction in such matters. Citing relevant case law, the court held that the impugned decision was vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and illegality. Consequently, the Ext. P-8 proceedings were quashed and the application was directed to be processed by the Tahsildar within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Applicability of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008:
The judgment noted that the property in question had been converted to garden land before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner sought relief from the provisions of the Amendment Act 29 of 2018, arguing that the land had been converted much earlier. The court emphasized the importance of following the legal procedures for reclassification under the Kerala Land Tax Act, irrespective of subsequent amendments in related acts.

Issue 4: Compliance with enabling provisions for land conversion and re-assessment under Sec. 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act:
The court reiterated the necessity for property holders to follow the correct procedure for reclassification of land under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It emphasized that once enabling orders are issued for land conversion, the previous entries in the Basic Tax Register become redundant. The judgment directed the competent authorities to ensure the proper processing of the petitioner's application for re-assessment, in line with the legal provisions and court precedents cited. Failure to comply within the specified timeframe would allow the petitioner to seek re-assessment directly from the Tahsildar, with clear instructions for timely resolution and without additional financial burdens imposed by amended provisions.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the erroneous Ext. P-8 order and directing the authorities to process the reclassification application correctly within the specified timelines, ensuring compliance with the legal framework and precedents established by previous judgments.