High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of by directing the competent authorit...
Abdul Wahab & V.B. Shahira v. State of Kerala & Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 10916 of 2016 (L)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2017-11-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petitions are disposed of by directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy, by calling for reports from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, that the properties involved are converted prior to the Act and that they are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. The Conveners are to inspect the property with notice to petitioners and call for particulars. If favourable reports are received, the competent authority shall pass orders on the applications for permission to use their properties for other purposes in light of Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Shivadasan, within one month from receipt of reports. If the requests are granted, petitioners shall be issued building permits or numbers as applicable, and may move for fresh assessment of lands as garden lands under the Kerala Land Tax Act, in light of Kizhakkambalam.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of by directing the competent authority to verify pre-Act status, call for reports from LLMCs, inspect with notice to petitioners, and pass orders on permissions if reports are favorable; if granted, issue building permits or numbers and consider fresh garden-land assessments under the relevant Acts; corrections to Data Banks and revenue records may be entertained as per amendment rules.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Wahab
- V.B. Shahira
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Trivandrum - 695001
- District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ernakulam - 682030
- Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kakkanad Village, Ernakulam - 682030, represented by its Chairman
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri R. Sanjith
- • Smt. C.S. Sindhu Krishnah
Counsels for Respondents
- • Govt. Pleader Ravikrishnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions challenge the application of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to properties that the petitioners say were converted from paddy land to garden land before the Act came into force. The petitioners allege that revenue records still describe the lands as paddy and that their applications for building permits and for numbering constructed buildings have been hindered for want of correct classification in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. They seek directions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to permit use of the properties for other purposes, and to correct entries in the Data Banks and revenue records; they also request building permits or numbers if eligible, and even a fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The learned Government Pleader contends that Data Banks may be corrected under the 2017 Amendment Rules and that pending corrections, the Data Banks must be used with caution; the Court held that if property was converted before the Act, the Act does not apply, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep. It referred to Puthan Purakkal Joseph, Shivadasan, and Kizhakkambalam to interpret the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitions are disposed of by directing the competent authority to verify pre‑Act status, call for reports from LLMCs, and pass orders on permissions if the reports are favorable, including issuing building permits or numbers.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that since their lands were converted prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the Act does not apply to them. They seek permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to use their lands for other purposes (including construction) and request corrections in the Data Banks and revenue records, as well as building permits and numbers for structures already erected.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that Data Banks may contain mistakes and that corrections are authorized by the 2017 Amendment Rules, with Local Level Monitoring Committees empowered to verify and correct entries. They argue that the Act provisions should apply unless the pre-Act conversion is clearly established, and that the competent authority must verify facts through reports before granting permissions, while following precedents.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep | 2015(1) KLT 984 | Positive | Cited as authority that properties converted prior to the Act are not governed by the Act, supporting non-application of the Act to pre-Act conversions. |
| Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector | 2015(3) KLT 182 | Positive | Cited regarding the scope of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to permit use of land for other purposes. |
| Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2017(3) KLT 822 | Positive | Used to discuss the scope of the power of the competent authority under the KL Utilization Order. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma | 2015(2) KLT 516 | Positive | Guides timelines for decisions on permissions and building aspects under the KL Utilization framework. |
| W.P.(C).9027/2015 | W.P.(C).9027/2015 | Mentioned Only | Judgment in a related petition cited as a precedent but not elaborated in the present judgment. |
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 Wahab & V.B. Shahira v. State of Kerala & 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939**
## **WP(C).No. 10916 of 2016 (L)**
**----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):**
- **----------------------**
**1. ABDUL WAHAB, S/O.LATE V.M. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.11/135, THAMARAPARAMBU, FORT KOCHI - 682 001.**
**2. V.B. SHAHIRA,**
- **W/O.ABDUL WAHAB, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.11/135, THAMARAPARAMBU, FORT KOCHI - 682 001.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
- **-------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.**
**2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.**
**3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM- 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.**
**BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.23608 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
rs.
## **WP(C).No. 10916 of 2016 (L)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
**EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/02/2016.**
**EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION RECEIPT BEARING NO.L10/19972/16. EXT.P3: TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PORTION DRAFT DATA BANK. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.1979/2007 DATED 18/04/2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.3092/2007 DATED 03/07/2007.**
**EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21/02/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR.**
**EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/03/2015 IN W.P.(C).9027/2015.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.**
## **//TRUE COPY//**
## **P.S. TO JUDGE**
rs.
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
## **==================**
**W.P.(C.) Nos.10916, 23608, 39710 of 2016 & 6189, 7895, 8857, 10083, 17114, 25235, 32329, 33045 & 33927 of 2017 -------------------------------------------**
## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2017**
## **JUDGMENT**
The properties of the petitioners referred to in the writ petitions were though paddy fields originally, it is stated that the same have been converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since their properties are described as paddy land in the revenue records, they are unable to make use of the same for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the applications preferred by the petitioners therein for building permits are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 2 and con. cases
alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. In most of the writ petitions, the specific case of the petitioners is that their properties are shown as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. In the remaining writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that their properties are not shown as paddy land in the Data Banks. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. The applications preferred by the petitioners in this connection are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to grant permission sought for by them to make use of the properties for other purposes. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 3 and con. cases
properties in the revenue records also. Some of the petitioners, among others, 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. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are mistakes in the draft and final Data Banks published under the Act and by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the Local Level Monitoring Committees are authorised to carry out appropriate corrections in the Data Banks. According to the learned Government Pleader, before granting the permission sought for by the petitioners, it has to be ensured that the properties involved in these matters are
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 4 and con. cases
not properties which are liable to be included in the Data Banks.
4. 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). If the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra) and_ **Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer** (2017(3) KLT 822), this Court has dealt with the scope of the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in dealing with the applications for permission preferred for use of the properties for other purposes.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 5 and con. cases
disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy, by calling for reports from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned that the properties involved in these matters are converted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that the same are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. It is also directed that before forwarding the reports, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees shall, along with the Village Officers concerned, inspect the property with notice to the petitioners to satisfy the claim of the petitioners that the properties are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. For the said purpose, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees are free to call for the particulars of the properties from the petitioners including copies of the title deeds. The reports shall be called for by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 6 and con. cases
judgment and the same shall be forwarded by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within one month thereafter. If favourable reports are received, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for permission to use their properties for other purposes in the light of the decisions of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra)_ and **Shivadasan** _(supra_ ), within one month from the date of receipt of the reports. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building 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
W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 7 and con. cases
if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in cases where they are parties to the writ petitions, 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**
SKS