High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-07-30Writ petition disposed of; Exts.P6 and P9 quash...

Abdul Majeed v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.17465 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly, J.
Judgment Date: 2018-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P6 and P9 quashed; the District Collector directed to re-consider the application, taking into account the LLMC report and the KSRSEC report, and the proposition of law laid down by this Court in its judgments, with finality within three months of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Exts.P6 and P9 quashed; directive to re-consider the application within three months, considering LLMC and KSRSEC reports and the law laid down by this Court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Majeed

Respondents

Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Kerala
District Collector, Kasaragode
Sub-Collector, Kasaragode
Village Officer, Padne Village, Kasaragode
Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Padne, Edachakai Post, Kasaragode District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. Krishnakumar
• Advocate for the petitioner?

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Majeed, the petitioner, challenges Exts.P6 (District Collector’s order) and Ext.P9 (Land Revenue Commissioner’s order) issued under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, denying permission to develop two contiguous plots totaling 32.5 cents in Padne Village, Kasaragode, for commercial purposes. The petitioner previously sought relief in WP(C) No. 29462 of 2016, and this Court directed the District Collector to consider the application in light of the law laid down in Puthenpurakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015) 3 KLT 182. Following that direction, site inspections and reports were obtained. The Local Level Monitoring Committee concluded that the land is dry land/paddy land/wet land converted prior to the 2008 Act; the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) analysis showed the plots fell under mixed vegetation/plantation with buildings, with historical trends from 2004 through 2017. The 3rd respondent also noted the land is not a paddy field and is not in the data bank, but the preparation of Ext.P5 was not favorably inclined to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the authorities ignored these reports and relied on surface observations, undermining due process. The High Court held that the primary and appellate authorities did not consider the LLMC and KSRSEC reports and quashed Exts.P6 and P9, directing the District Collector to reconsider the application, taking those reports and the court’s jurisprudence into account, with finality within three months, disposing of the petition accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts.P6 and P9 were passed without due application of mind and that the authorities neglected the LLMC and KSRSEC reports, which show land use is not simply paddy field and includes other crops and structures existing prior to the 2008 Act. The petitioner relies on the Puthenpurakkal Joseph decision (2015) to argue that the matter requires re-consideration in light of admissible reports, and seeks quashing of the orders and a direction to reassess the application with the two reports and applicable law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Exts.P6 and P9 were issued under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 after examining the available data and reports, including site observations. They argue that the authorities acted within the statutory framework and that the petition should be dismissed to uphold the decision-making process. They rely on the established practice of evaluating land use and potential conversions under the land utilization scheme and contend the LLMC and KSRSEC reports do not necessitate a different outcome.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Puthenpurakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited as the controlling proposition of law guiding reconsideration and reliance on LLMC/KSRSEC-type reports; the judgment explicitly directs reconsideration in light of this decision.
Judgment reported in 2015(3) KHC 727	2015(3) KHC 727	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P10; cited in the petition as a judgment, but no specific reasoning is discussed in the provided portion of the judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Majeed v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Kerala and Others 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 SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 17465 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **ABDUL MAJEED AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.U.M.ABDULKADER HAJI, PATTILLATH HOUSE, PADNE KADAPPURAM-680722, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGODE COLLECTORATE, KASARGODE-671121,** **3. THE SUB-COLLECTOR, KASARGODE AT KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD-671315, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **4. VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **PADNE VILLAGE-671319, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PADNE, EDACHAKAI PO-671319, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD-671315, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **R1-R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RVS** **WP(C).No. 17465 of 2017** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE**| |---|---| ||**AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ON 03/08/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE**| ||**AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ON 25/08/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/09/2016 IN**| ||**WP(C) NO.29462/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COLLECTOR**| ||**DATED 24/11/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/12/2016 OF THE**| ||**DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGODE.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE**| ||**COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/02/2017 IN**| ||**WP(C) 2931/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/05/2017 PASSED BY**| ||**THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2015(3) KHC**| ||**727.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KSREC.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **RVS. 02/08/2018** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P9 orders of the District Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner passed in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of two parcels of land, lying contiguously, having a total extent of 32.5 cents situate in R.S.Nos.130/2A and 130/3 of Padne Village in Hosdurg Taluk of Kasaragod District. Petitioner desires to develop the said property commercially. Thereupon, petitioner applied to the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, seeking permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Since the application was not being taken up for consideration, W.P.(C) No.29462 of 2016 was preferred before this Court, which was disposed of on 06.09.2016, directing the 1[st] respondent District Collector to consider the application in 2 **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017** the light of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment in ' _**Puthenpurakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector**_ ' [2015 (3) KLT 182], evident from Ext.P3. 3. In pursuance of Ext.P3 judgment, 4[th] respondent Village Officer conducted a site inspection and found that there are 34 yielding coconut trees aged 25 years, and there is a building situated in the property, evident from Ext.P4. On 19.11.2016, 3[rd] respondent inspected the property and found that the properties are not paddy fields and are not included in the data bank. It is also found that there is no paddy field in the vicinity and that there are a few houses around. However, the 3[rd] respondent has not recommended favourably, evident from Ext.P5 report. According to the petitioner, having found that the land is not paddy field and not included in the data bank, and further, there are no paddy fields in the vicinity, Ext.P5 report is drawn without any justifiable reasons. 4. The 2[nd] respondent District Collector, according to the petitioner, without application of mind, passed an order declining permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, evident from Ext.P6 dated 27.12.2016. It is also submitted that, the decision so taken by the District 3 **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017** Collector cannot be legally sustained in view of the judgment of this Court in ' _**Puthenpurakkal Joseph'**_ ( _supra_ ). Anyhow, being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 1[st] respondent, however, the same was declined as per Ext.P9 order, affirming the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, reports of the Agricultural Officer of the jurisdictional limit and the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), Thiruvananthapuram are produced before this Court. The Local Level Monitoring Committee has concluded that the aforesaid 32.5 cents is dry land/paddy land/wet land, converted prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for short, 'Act, 2008']. So also, the report of the KSRSEC shows that, the analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet and different satellite data sets for survey number 130/2A, 130/2B and 130/3 and in 1967 data, the plots were observed under mixed plantation. The survey plot No.130/2A was observed as predominantly mixed vegetation/plantation in 2004. This 4 ## **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017** trend in land use pattern was observed to be continued in 2010, 2014 and 2017. The survey plot No.130/2B was observed as predominantly mixed vegetation/plantation with buildings/structures in the data of 2004. This trend in land use pattern was observed to be continued in the data of 2010, 2014 and 2017. So far as survey plot No.130/3 is concerned, it was observed as predominantly mixed vegetation/plantation with buildings/structures and two linear features/road was passing through the plot in south-west and south-east direction in the data of 2004. This trend in land use pattern was observed to be continued in 2010, 2014 and 2017. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader _in extenso_ , and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 7. Even though in Exts.P6 and P9, the primary as well as the appellate authority have held that the petitioner is not entitled to secure any reliefs in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, I am of the considered opinion that, the reports submitted by the Local Level Monitoring Committee as well as the KSRSEC show that **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017** 5 the land in question is predominantly planted with other agricultural crops, besides buildings are situated in the said property prior to the introduction of Act, 2008. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, both the primary authority and the appellate authority did not have the advantage of considering the said reports, and it is only appropriate that the orders are quashed and direct the primary authority to re-consider the issue taking into account the LLMC report as well as the report of the KSRSEC. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P6 and P9 orders passed by the 2[nd] and 1[st] respondents, respectively, and direct the 2[nd] respondent to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account the aforesaid two reports and the proposition of law laid down by this Court in its various judgments, and attain finality at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the writ petition along with the appended documents before the 2[nd] respondent. 6 **W.P.(C) No.17465 of 2017** The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/01.08.2018