Abdul Azeez v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub-Collector, Perinthalmanna; Nilambur LLMC; Nilambur Municipality; Nilambur Taluk; Agricultural Officer, Nilambur; Village Officer, Nilambur
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Alexander Thomas, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2020-03-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- Disposal with directions: (1) It is affirmed that the LLMC has already taken a decision in the petitioner’s favour for deletion from the land data bank (Ext.P4) as reflected in Ext.P5. (2) The LLMC and other competent officials must ensure deletion from the data bank within six weeks from the certified copy of the judgment. (3) Since the LLMC has already taken a favourable decision, the 1st respondent need not await further for Ext.P12; it should process Ext.P12 for conversion under Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act after obtaining reports and providing copies to the petitioner, affording reasonable hearing, and render a considered decision within two months from the certified copy of the judgment. The petition stands disposed of with these directions.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above; LLMC to delete from data bank within six weeks; 1st respondent to consider Ext.P12 within two months and proceed with conversion after due procedure.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Azeez
Respondents
- Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, RDO Office, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District
- Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Nilambur
- Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Nilambur Municipality, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Nilambur
- Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Nilambur, Malappuram
- Village Officer, Nilambur Village, Nilambur, Malappuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. P.K. Soyuz
- • Sri. E.V. Babychan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (C) arises from a dispute over the classification and use of 12.85 acres of land in Nilambur Village, Nilambur Taluk, comprising Re.Sy. No. 181/2-3 and 181/2-4 in Block 92. The petitioner Abdul Azeez asserts joint ownership and possession of the land, which is currently classified as Nilam in revenue records and is neither Paddy land nor wet land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). He has filed Ext.P12 under Section 27A(1) seeking conversion of land use and permission to utilized the land for other purposes including construction; Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 relate to deletion of the land from the land data bank and Ext.P4/Ext.P5 show LLMC had, in 2015–16, taken a decision in the petitioner’s favour for deletion, though steps remained incomplete. The court revisited prior orders (Ext.P3 2014 judgment and Ext.P10 2018 judgment) directing LLMC to process deletion and directed the 1st respondent RDO to decide Ext.P12 within two months after ensuring due procedure, hearing, and disclosure. The judgment emphasizes expeditious completion of deletion from the data bank (within six weeks) and directs prompt consideration of Ext.P12 for conversion under Sec.27A(1). The petition is disposed of with these directions to safeguard legitimate rights and enable corrective revenue actions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the subject land is not Paddy land or Wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 were filed before the LLMC for deletion from the data bank and Ext.P4/Ext.P5 records show that LLMC had, in 2015–16, taken a decision in his favour, but actual deletion steps were not completed. Ext.P12, dated 14.02.2020, under Section 27A(1) of the Act, seeks conversion of land use and permission to utilize the land for other purposes including construction. The petitioner seeks deletion from the data bank and reassessment of taxes, contending that the matter should be decided promptly in line with the court’s earlier directions (Ext.P3 and Ext.P10).
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that LLMC had already taken a decision in the petitioner’s favour for deletion from the land data bank (Ext.P4), as evidenced by communications (Ext.P5), and that the formal deletion steps must be completed before Ext.P12 can be adjudicated. They emphasize adherence to prior orders and request timely action by the Revenue Department to complete the necessary steps and to proceed with Ext.P12 after deletion.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salim v. State of Kerala | 2017(1) KLT 392 | Mentioned Only | Cited in the petition to support deletion of land from the data bank; the present judgment references it as context but does not apply its holding as binding precedent. |
| W.P.(C.) No. 4359 of 2014 | W.P.(C.) No.4359 of 2014 | Mentioned Only | Past judgment cited (Ext.P3) for directing LLMC to act; treated as binding history of the instant matter, not as a new precedent. |
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 Abdul Azeez v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub-Collector, Perinthalmanna; Nilambur LLMC; Nilambur Municipality; Nilambur Taluk; Agricultural Officer, Nilambur; Village Officer, Nilambur and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.