High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions to L...
A.B. Reetha v. Local Level Monitoring Committee for Chittur Thathamangalam Municipality (and connected matters)
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos. 36830, 36852, 36866, 36886, 36932 & 36947 of 2017
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2017-11-16
- Court Decision / Holding
- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed by the Conveners of the LLMC. In cases where reports have already been called for, orders shall be passed on the strength of those reports. If the requests are allowed, petitioners may invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to use the properties for other purposes, with orders to be passed within one month from the LLMC decision. The KL U Order applications, with a copy of the writ petition, shall be decided in light of this Court’s decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph, untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016. If Clause 6 is granted, petitioners will be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, if otherwise entitled. If applicable, petitioners may also move authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of lands as garden lands, to be considered within one month from the date of their request, as per Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma. The judgment directs expeditious disposal within three months.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of with directions to LLMCs to consider Data Bank corrections after KSRSEC reports; fees to be paid if directed; orders within three months; if corrections are granted, petitioners may file Clause 6 applications for permission to use lands for other purposes; if Clause 6 granted, building permits or numbers may be issued; further steps under KLUT and KL Tax Act with time-bound considerations; citations to Jalaja Dileep, Puthan Purakkal Joseph, and Mariumma guide the process.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- A.B. Reetha, W/o Krishna Kumar, Aged 47 years, Vakapadam Calam, Nallepilly P.O., Palakkad District, 678553
Respondents
- The Local Level Monitoring Committee for Chittur Thathamangalam Municipality, represented by its Convenor, the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thathamangalam P.O., Palakkad District-678101
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Binoy Vasudevan
- • Smt. P.G. Babitha
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Ravi Krishnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
These batch writ petitions challenge entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, regarding lands allegedly converted to garden land prior to the Act. Petitioners claim their properties were pre-act conversions and thus should not be included in the Data Bank, or barred from development; they seek corrections in Data Bank and revenue records, along with building permits and numbers. The court notes that if conversions occurred before the Act, the Act would not apply, but such determinations are to be made by Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) at the outset, which also have power to correct Data Bank entries. The judgment directs LLMCs to decide these corrections after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) about status at Act commencement, and to require petitioners to pay KSRSEC fees if directed. If corrections are allowed, petitioners may file Clause 6 applications under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to use the lands for other purposes; the competent authority shall decide within a month from LLMC decision and, where applicable, issue building permits or numbers. If Clause 6 is granted, petitioners may seek fresh assessment of lands as garden lands under the Local Tax Act, to be considered within one month. The court cites Jalaja Dileep, Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma for guiding principles, and orders expeditious disposal within three months.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that their properties were converted to garden land prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and thus should not be included in the Data Bank or subjected to Act restrictions. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue records, along with building permits and building numbers. They argue pre-act status should allow development after due process. They rely on statutory interpretation and precedent to assert that pre-conversion properties fall outside the Act's purview.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contend that Data Bank corrections must be based on accurate verifications and LLMCs have the authority to correct Data Bank entries. They emphasize dependence on KSRSEC reports to determine status as of Act commencement and note that any relief under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order must follow established procedure and timelines. Government Pleader supports orderly processing and compliance with statutory frameworks, including possible issuance of permits or building numbers if eligible.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep | (2015(1) KLT 984) | Positive | Cited for the proposition that properties converted prior to the Act are not subject to its provisions; the court relies on this Apex Court holding to support pre-act exemption in appropriate cases. |
| Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector | (2015(3) KLT 182) | Positive | Cited to validate using Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to use lands for other purposes, noting the guidance against being bound by circulars; used as precedent for processing such applications. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma | (2015(2) KLT 516) | Positive | Cited for guidance on fresh assessment of lands as garden lands under the relevant statutory framework; used to support senior procedural steps and timelines. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.B. Reetha v. Local Level Monitoring Committee for Chittur Thathamangalam Municipality (and connected matters) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/25TH KARTHIKA, 1939**
**WP(C).No. 36830 of 2017 (C)**
**----------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S): ----------------------**
**A.B.REETHA, W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, VAKAPADAM CALAM, NALLEPILLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678553.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**------------------------**
**THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678101.**
**BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2017,ALONG WITH WPC.NO.36852/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**TS**
## **WP(C).No. 36830 of 2017 (C)**
## **--------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**-------------------------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1420/2005 OF S. R. O. CHITTUR.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION ISSUED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HOLDER SRI. A. B. HARIDAS, DATED 22.11.2016.**
**EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION ISSUED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HOLDER SMT. T. A. JAYASREE DATED 22.11.2016.**
**EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION ISSUED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HOLDER SRI. V. SREEDHARAN ON 22.11.2016.**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.**
**EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL**
**------------------------------------------------**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**PS TO JUDGE**
**TS**
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
**--------------------------------------------**
# **W.P.(C).Nos.36830, 36852, 36866, 36886, 36932 & 36947 of 2017**
**---------------------------------------------------------------**
**Dated this the 16[th] day of November, 2017**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Banks prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the
W.P.(c).No.36830 of 2017 & con. cases : 2 :
properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. The petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Banks and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Banks in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others,
W.P.(c).No.36830 of 2017 & con. cases : 3 :
seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer** v. **Jalaja Dileep** (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties
W.P.(c).No.36830 of 2017 & con. cases : 4 :
for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)].
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with,
W.P.(c).No.36830 of 2017 & con. cases : 5 :
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building
W.P.(c).No.36830 of 2017 & con. cases : 6 :
permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests.
Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE**
rsr