TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner sought for change in the BTR vide Ext. P-5 application dated 22.01.2014 submitted before the 3rd respondent-RDO. The 3rd respondent RDO instead of referring the application to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to make a fresh assessment 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances of the case; and E) to award the cost of this petition." 2. Heard Sri. K. Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner & Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter for taking action under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. Now the 2nd respondent-District Collector has considered the matter on merits and has issued an order in the nature of the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hsildar concerned is obliged in law to make a fresh assessment of the subject property under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, as aforestated. Therefore, 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 co....