Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (3) TMI 1445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the land in the BTR under the Kerala Land Tax Act sought for a report of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, who reported the fact that the property was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thereafter, the RDO referred the matter to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, who vide Ext. P-8 order rejected Ext. P-5 application on the ground that there are no laws for change in BTR and it could be done in particular cases as per the judgments of this Court and that the property could be cultivated with the same cultivation that was being conducted in the property immediately three years prior to Exts. P-2 P-3 orders. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. It is beyond any dispute that the subject property has been converted as garden land or purayidam, long prior to 12.08.2008 (which the date of coming into force of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). As a matter of fact, it is common ground that the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in the Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 has already granted permission for conversion of the subject properties to be used for various purposes other than agricultural purposes, as per Ext. P-2 proceedings issued as early as on 12.10.1987 and Ext. P-3 proceedings issued as early as on 18.03.1988. Thereafter, now the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned Ext. P-8 order dated 20.01.2015 stating that the plea of the petitioner for re-assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 cannot be acceded to and the 2nd respondent has even gone to the extraneous extent in Ext. P-8 that there are no enabling provisions in law to grant the request of the petitioner for fresh assessment of the subject property for land taxation purposes for such reclassification of the subject property in the BTR, etc. 4. After hearing both sides, it is only to be 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 ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 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. In case, for any reason whatsoever, Ext. P-5 application is not forwarded to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, within the said time limit, then the petitioner may file an appropriate application under Sec. 6A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates