JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order, by which the application submitted by him under Form A under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in Ext.P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.06.2001 under Clause (2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.
2. Earlier the petitioner's application under Form-A was rejected by Ext.P2, directing the petitioner to take recourse to Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The said order was challenged before this Court, by filing WPC No.5665/2023, wherein by
3
judgment dated 10thMarch 2023, this Court found that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decisions of this Court in Iype Varghese V. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2020 (5) KLT 403] and District Collector, Ernakulam and Others V. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]. This Court had specifically found that in the light of the above judgments, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned order therein was quashed and there was a direction to the Tahsildar (LR) to consider the petitioner's case in light of the binding judgments noticed.
3. Despite the directions in Ext.P3, virtually upholding the petitioner's entitlement in his application filed under Form-A, by Ext.P4, the same was rejected, for the reasons stated above. The Tahsildar(LR) has not considered the dictum laid down in the judgments noticed in Ext.P3 judgment, which had become final. The reason stated in Ext.P4 that Ext.P1 was passed imposing conditions, which were not complied with by the petitioner, also cannot be accepted. It is not stated that the petitioner has flouted any
4
of the conditions in Ext.P1. There is no time limit fixed for complying with the conditions in Ext.P1. There is no case for the Government that the order passed in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the KLU order suffers any infirmity.
4. Under said circumstances, taking note of the binding decisions and Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 4threspondent to re-consider the Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 and to allow the application taking note of the identity and extent of the property, covered by Ext.P1 KLU order. It shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
JJ
5