High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-08Writ petitions disposed of; directed the compet...

Alex K. Varkey v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos.7400, 8007, 8010, 10580 & 13271 of 2017; WP(C).No. 7400 of 2017 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to decide the petitions for permission to use the properties for other purposes in light of the cited decisions within one month. If permissions under Clause 6 are granted, petitioners will be entitled to building permits or numbers; they may seek fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act for lands now treated as garden lands, with due consideration to related precedents.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of; directed the competent authority to decide applications under the Kerala Land Utilization Order within one month, and if permissions are granted, to issue building permits or numbers; further, to consider fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, in light of cited decisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Alex K. Varkey

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
District Collector, Ernakulam
Agricultural Officer & Convener, Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Kalady

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Avaneesh Koyikkara
• Adv. Lindons C. Davis

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges the application of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to lands that were originally paddy fields but converted to garden land before the Act. Petitioners claim that their properties appear as paddy land in revenue records or are not included in the Act’s Data Bank, which allegedly blocks building permits, corrections in revenue entries, or assignment of numbers to constructed buildings. The court observes that where conversion occurred prior to the Act and the land is not in the Data Bank for that reason, the Act would not apply, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep. Consequently, petitioners may pursue permission to use the land for other purposes under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, subject to the competent authority’s decision. This is supported by the court’s references to Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer to delineate the scope of the competent authority’s power under the KLU Order. The judgment directs the competent authority to decide the applications in light of these precedents within one month, and, if permissions are granted, petitioners would receive building permits or numbers from local authorities. They may also seek fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The decision closes with directions to consider cases in view of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, balancing conservation and lawful use.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend that their lands, though converted to garden land before the Act, are either omitted from the Data Bank or wrongly shown as paddy land in revenue records. They seek permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to use the land for other purposes, correction of entries, and building permissions (where applicable). They urge that non-application of the Act to their properties should permit development after due approvals.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents, led by the Government Pleader, argue that the Act’s applicability depends on data bank status and conversion dates; they emphasize interdepartmental procedures and the need to follow due process for permits, corrections, or building numbers, subject to the Act and KLUO provisions.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Used to support the proposition that lands converted prior to the Act and not included in the Data Bank fall outside the Act’s applicability.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited for guidance on the scope of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2017(3) KLT 822	Positive	Referenced to discuss the scope of the competent authority’s powers under the KLU Order.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited for considerations under the KLUO framework when processing requests for permission.

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 Alex K. Varkey v. State 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 7400 of 2017 (Y)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **----------------------** **ALEX K. VARKEY, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.K.I.VARKEY, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 574.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.** **3. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER & CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 574.** ## **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2017,ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.8007 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 7400 of 2017 (Y)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.10.2017 OF AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALADY ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK REGISTER.** **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION AS PER KLU ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.7400, 8007, 8010, 10580 &** ## **13271 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** 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 W.P.(c).No.7400 of 2017 & con. cases. : 2 : preferred by the petitioners therein for building permits 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. 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 W.P.(c).No.7400 of 2017 & con. cases. : 3 : purposes. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their 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. It is seen that reports have been filed before this Court in all these matters pursuant to the interim order passed, confirming the case set up by the petitioners that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions are either not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act or included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act. 4. If the properties of the petitioners are W.P.(c).No.7400 of 2017 & con. cases. : 4 : converted prior to the coming into force of the Act and if the same are not included in the Data Bank on that ground, 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 disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to pass orders on the W.P.(c).No.7400 of 2017 & con. cases. : 5 : 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_ ). Orders as directed above shall be passed by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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 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 W.P.(c).No.7400 of 2017 & con. cases. : 6 : **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