Tax levied on land depends upon the nature of practice: Kerala High Court
The tax to be levied upon the owner of the land depends upon the nature of practice being carried out on the land. If by default, the property covered by application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, is the same or part of the property covered by statutory order passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order by the RDO, then fresh assessment of the subject property be made, so as to make correction showing the changed nature of the land. This proclamation was made by the Kerala High Court presided by J. ALEXANDER THOMAS in the case of JAVAD K. HASSAN vs. DR.HAARIS RASHEED [Con.Case(C).No.9 OF 2021 IN WP(C).14486/2020]. The contempt of court case has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in judgment of W.P(C)No.14486/2020. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that from the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the petitioner has already secured proceedings issued by the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer granting statutory permission for change of user of the land for any non-agricultural purposes in respect of the subject property, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Therefore, consequential action is to be taken under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, for fresh assessment of the subject property, so as to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register had to be taken by the Tahsildar concerned and not by the RDO. Tahsildar though a party, had not been made a party in the contempt case and further that strict instructions and directives will be given to the Tahsildar concerned to immediately ascertain, as to whether the subject property covered by application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar is the same or part of the property covered by statutory order passed by the RDO under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order. It must also be ensured that if the property in both cases was found to be the same, then strict instructions will be given to the Tahsildar to ensure that orders are passed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to effectuate additional entries to show correctly the changed nature of the land as ‘purayidam/garden land’, etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 30TH MAGHA 1942 Con.Case(C).No.9 OF 2021 IN WP(C).14486 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14486 2020(I)DATED 27.07.2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA JAVAD K. HASSAN S O LATE NAGOOR RAWTHER MACKER MANZIL THYNOTHIL LANE ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683101. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAGOOR JEHANGIR RAWTHER AGED 62 S O LATE NAGOOR RAWTHER RESIDING AT MACKER MANZIL THYNOTHIL LANE ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683101 BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION DR.HAARIS RASHEED AGE AND FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI 682001 SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SPL.GP(REVENUE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE Cont.CaseNo.21 ALEXANDER THOMAS J Cont.CaseNo.21 arising out of judgment dated 27.07.2020 in W.P(C) No.14486 2020 Dated this the 19th day of February 2021 The aforecaptioned contempt of court case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment dated 27.07.2020 in W.P(C)No.14486 2020 filed by the Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for the respondent Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar learned Special Government Pleadersubmits that from the pleadings and materials on record it appears that the petitioner has already secured Ext.P2 proceedings dated 02.03.1996 issued by the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer granting statutory permission for change of user of the land for any non agricultural purposes in respect of the subject property in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Cont.CaseNo.21 Land Utilization Order and that therefore the consequential action is to be taken under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the subject property so as to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register to show correctly the changed nature of the land as garden land purayidam has to be taken by the Tahsildar concernedand not by the RDO has not been made a party in the contempt case and further that strict instructions and directives will be given to the Tahsildar concerned to immediately ascertain as to whether the subject property covered by Ext.P3 application dated 25.06.2020 filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar is the same or part of the property covered by Ext.P2 statutory order dated 02.03.1996 passed by the RDO under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and that if the property covered by Ext.P3 application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is found to be the same or part of the property covered by Ext.P2 order under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order then strict instructions will be given to the Tahsildar to ensure that orders are passed on Ext.P3 under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act so as to effectuate additional entries in the BTR to show Cont.CaseNo.21 correctly the changed nature of the land as purayidam garden land The abovesaid undertakings made on behalf of the Tahsildar concerned are recorded. Accordingly it is ordered that the Tahsildar concerned will ensure that necessary orders are passed on Ext.P3 application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as stated hereinabove and if it is found that the property covered by Ext.P3 application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is the same or part of the property covered by Ext.P2 statutory order passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order by the RDO then fresh assessment of the subject property be made so as to make additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of the land as purayidam garden land and not either as Nilam paddy land or as സ(cid:2)ഭ(cid:4)വ വ(cid:7)ത(cid:9)യ(cid:4)ന(cid:12 വര(cid:14)ത(cid:9)യ ഭ(cid:16)മ(cid:9). Action in this regard should be duly completed by the Tahsildar Land Records Aluva who is the 2nd respondent in Annexure A1 W.P(C) No.14486 2020 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment Cont.CaseNo.21 The Registry will return back certified copy of Annexure A1 in W.P(C) No.14486 2020 if a request in that regard is made by the petitioner s counsel. However the Registry will ensure that photocopy of the said document is placed in the original case file for the purpose of maintenance of records. Thereafter if there is any non compliance of the abovesaid directions by the Tahsildar concerned then the petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh contempt of court case in the Accordingly recording the abovesaid submission of the respondent Officer the above Cont.Casewill stand disposed of Sd ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE Cont.CaseNo.21 PETITIONER S S EXHIBITS CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27 07 2020 IN WPC NO.14486 2020 OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA