9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iyumma. Therefore, when the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no power vested with the statutory authority to expand the scope of the provisions of law by issuing directions against the mandate of law. This is exactly happened in the case at hand. Taking into account the legal and factual circumstances, the definite view is that the learned single Judge was right in quashing Ext.P7 order passed by the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District directing the writ petitioner to secure further orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A of Act, 2008 in order to assess the tax as per the provisions of Section 27C of the Act, 2008, as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018. Appeal dismissed. - W.A. No. 2516 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2020 - S. Manikumar, C.J. And S.P. Chaly, J. For the Appellant Appearing Parties : Aravind Kumar Babu, Sr. Government Pleader JUDGMENT S.P. CHALY, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Tahsildar and the Village Officer of Thodupuzha Taluk and Village respectively of Idukki District seeking to set aside the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge quashing Ext.P7 order passed by the Tahs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order for the reason that consequent to the introduction of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Act, 2008' for short) on and with effect from 30.12.2017, the writ petitioner has to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer and secure orders in accordance with the amended provision. 3. Learned single Judge, after taking into account the factual and legal situations, has passed the impugned judgment quashing Ext.P7 and directed the Tahsildar to consider Ext.P6 application construing it as an application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and to issue necessary orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 4. We have heard learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Aravinda Kumar Babu T.K. and learned counsel appearing for the respondent i.e., the writ petitioner, Sri. T.P. Pradeep and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 5. The prime contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader is relying upon Section 27A of Act, 2008, which was introduced int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. It was accordingly that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P2 order dated 05.06.2018 permitting the writ petitioner to utilise the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation i.e., to say when the application was submitted by the writ petitioner, Section 27A of Act, 2008 was never introduced and was not in force. So, the only option available to the writ petitioner was to submit an application under clause 6(2) of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the Revenue Divisional Officer and he was the competent authority to take a decision in the said application. The relevant provisions of Section 27A read thus: 27A. Change of nature of unnotified land.-(1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittedly, the writ petitioner's land was not included in the data bank constituted as per Act, 2008, consequent to which he was not liable to file any application before the authorities constituted under Act, 2008. True, if it is an unnotified land as per the provisions of Act, 2008, after the introduction of Section 27A, an application will have to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking permission for utilisation of such lands for residential or commercial or other purposes. But, sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 27A quoted above makes it abundantly clear that Section 27A has only prospective effect from 30.12.2017. There is no dispute that the application of the writ petitioner was prior to the introduction of Section 27A to Act, 2008. Sub-Section 13 of Section 27A makes the situation more explicit and clear in the context, which read thus: Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11. Therefore, needless to say, any application recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sist upon or to direct the writ petitioner to secure an order under Section 27A of Act, 2008 to change the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of Section 27C of Act, 2008, since the petitioner has already secured an order under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, which was the sole requirement before introduction of Section 27A, into Act, 2008, so far as concerning petitioner. 13. In fact, a learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the question with respect to the assessment of tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012 (3) KLT 333], resultant to the property converted on the basis of orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for utilising the property for other purposes, vis-a-vis the nature of the property classified in the basic tax register as paddy field or nilam. The learned single Judge directed that the property of the respondent will have to be classified as re-claimed land (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register and further issued a direction to the Tahsildar and Village Officer to effect appropriate correction as per the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to pay tax: Provided that no such rectification shall be made which has the effect of enhancing the tax payable unless the landholder and any other person liable to pay tax have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 20. By the perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the rectification of mistake narrated in Section 18 relates to the apparent mistake on the face of the record in relation to any order passed by the prescribed authority, Appellate authority or the revisional authority under the Act. Therefore, the rectification of mistake can only be in respect of proceedings or orders passed by the original authority, Appellate authority or the revisional authority. 21. Statutory enquiry to ascertain whether the land is a Paddy Land or Wetland and conversion of the land for residential purpose or for any public purpose is governed by KLU Order or the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 for conversion of the land from Nilam (Wetland) to 'Purayidam' (Dry Land). The concerned authorities constituted under KLU Order or Kerala Wetland Act 2008 are the competent authority. Nature of the land cannot be changed or converted by directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso to make appropriate additions to the Basic Tax Register. Such a course, in our view, is not forbidden by any of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, particularly those contained in paragraph 21 of the judgment mentioned above. 15. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court was that even though the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register cannot be altered, addition can be made taking into account the changed condition of the paddy field and then assess tax in accordance with Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 16. Therefore, the assessment of the land tax on conversion of the nature of the property prior to the introduction of Section 27A to Act, 2008, was guided by the provisions of the Land Utilisation order and the law laid down by the Division Bench in Mariyumma (supra). Therefore, when the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no power vested with the statutory authority to expand the scope of the provisions of law by issuing directions against the mandate of law. This is exactly happened in the case at hand. Taking into account the legal and factual circumstances discussed above, we are of the definite view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
