Abdulla and Muhammed v. Village Officer, Narukara Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional, Malappuram; Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk, Manjeri; and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 27932 of 2011 (N)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **1. ABDULLA, S/O.ATHIMANNIL ABDUL RAHIMAN, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. SRI. MUHAMMED,** **S/O. KAINIKKARA MOIDEEN HAJI, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.** ## *** ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED** **2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISION, MALAPPURAM.** ***ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/06/2012 IN IA NO.7785/2012.** ## **** ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED** **3. TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI-676 221.** - **** ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/08/2012 INI.A. NO.10935/2012.** **BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.VIJU THOMAS.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **WP(C).No. 27932 of 2011 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.883/2011 DATED 03/02/2011 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.1925 DATED 28/02/2011. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 06/05/2011. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06/05/2011. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/09/2011 IN W.P.(C)NO. 24979/2011. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/10/2011 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10/10/2011. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/06/2012 TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 27932 of 2011** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners challenge Ext.P8 possession certificate issued showing the property as 'nilam' and the contention raised is that the same is a rubber estate. 2. Both the petitioners purchased an extent of 4 acres and 12 cents of property as per Ext.P2 sale deed and thereafter mutation has been effected and the tax has also been paid as evident from Exts.P3 and P4. In the sale deed the property is described as a rubber estate. It is averred in the writ petition that the said land is cultivated with rubber plants and coconut trees for more than 25 years and at present only rubber plants are being cultivated and therefore the same does not come within the definition of 'paddy land' under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also stated that in all the records the land is noted as rubber estate. The petitioners submitted an application for issuing a possession certificate as per Ext.P5 and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24979/2011 seeking for appropriate direction in the matter and thereafter Ext.P7 reply has been furnished. W.P.(C).No.27932/2011 -2- 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even Ext.P7 reply given by the Village Officer will show that the property is cultivated with coconut and rubber, but a decision is taken otherwise, merely because of the description of the land in the Village records as 'nilam'. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the properties are clearly garden lands and remaining as purayidam, which fact is clear from the various documents produced by the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that in the light of the judgments of this Court in **Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat** (2009 (3) KLT 899) and **Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner** (2010 (2) KLT 617) and other judgments, a mere description of the property in the revenue records may not be conclusive and will not estop the parties from producing materials to show otherwise and therefore the petitioners are entitled for a direction to change the classification of the properties in the revenue records. 5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that as per the Basic Tax Register the property is recorded as “nanja” (nilam). The Village Officer has no power to change the category of land. It is also stated that in Ext.P1 it has been certified that rubber trees are standing in the W.P.(C).No.27932/2011 -3- property, but the petitioner has illegally converted the property for the purpose of planting rubber trees without getting sanction for conversion. The property in question is a wet land as per the village records and the first respondent issued Exts.P7 and P8 after site inspection and verification of the relevant revenue records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a recent judgment of this Court in **Jalaja Dileep v. The Revenue Divisional Officer** (2012 (3) KLT 333) to contend for the position that reclassification can be effected since the property remains as dry land. 7. The contention of the petitioners is supported by various judgments of this Court. As regards the aspect regarding conversion, the decisions of this Court have held that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 is only prospective. In **Shahanaz Shukkoor** **v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat** (2009 (3) KLT 899) it was held as follows: “The mere description of an item of property as 'nilam' (paddy field or wet land) in the revenue records, is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those for which the paddy land or wet land can be used. This is because the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, deals W.P.(C).No.27932/2011 -4- with the conversion of lands, which are wetland or paddy fields, on the basis of the actual fact situation and not depending on the description of the property in the revenue records. The definition of the terms 'paddy field' and 'wetland' in the said Act is sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in the title document.” The same view was taken in **Praveen's case** (2010 (2) KLT 617.) 8. The next important judgment is that of a Division Bench of this Court in **Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar** (2012 (1) KLT 491), has held as follows: “What is clear from the above is that prohibition is only in respect of conversion or reclamation of paddy land after the commencement of the operation of the Act. The Act admittedly came into force only with effect from 12.8.2008 and so much so, whatever be the conversions of paddy land or wet land made prior to the coming into force of this Act, cannot be said to be a violation of the Act. S.13 of the Act authorises the District Collector to order reconversion of paddy land and wet land which is converted in violation of the provisions of the Act..” Hence, the allegation about unauthorised conversion, cannot survive. 9. All the above decisions have been considered in **Jalaja Dileep's** W.P.(C).No.27932/2011 -5- **case** (2012 (3) KLT 333). The contention that the conversion prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, is illegal, cannot be sustained, as already noticed. Evidently, the nature of the land shows that no paddy has been cultivated for a long period of time, as is clear from para 6 of the counter affidavit. 10. In **Jalaja Dileep's case** (supra) it was also held that the Tahsildar is the proper authority having jurisdiction of the Taluk in which the land is situated, for the purpose of Kerala Land Tax Act and as far as the correction of entries in Basic Tax Register are concerned. Therefore, if the true nature of the land is ascertained, the entries in the Basic Tax Register could be corrected under the orders of the Tahsildar concerned. 11. The petitioners have filed I.A. No.10935/2012 to implead the Tahsildar as an additional respondent. The said application has been allowed and the Tahsildar was impleaded as additional third respondent. 12. In the light of the principles stated in the various judgments mentioned above, it can be seen that any conversion made prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 cannot defeat the right of the parties to change the classification of the land in the revenue records. The land in question is situated as a W.P.(C).No.27932/2011 -6- rubber estate, it cannot be termed as a paddy land at all and the mere description in the revenue records, will not disentitle the petitioners from getting the relief. The surrounding properties are also cultivated with coconut and rubber as evident from Ext.P1. 13. Therefore, the entries in the Basic Tax Register will have to be corrected. The petitioners will file appropriate application before the additional third respondent Tahsildar, who will consider the application after getting reports and on the basis of the reports, the classification of the property in the Basic Tax Register will be changed from nilam to garden/converted land. Appropriate action will be finalised within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application along with a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ## **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** ## **kav/**