High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-10-24Petition disposed of with directions to LLMC to...

Ali Akbar v. District Collector, Malappuram & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18740 of 2016 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2017-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of: direct the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider Ext.P16 in light of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) report received pursuant to the court's interim order dated 13.01.2017, within one month. If the Ext.P16 request is allowed, the petitioner shall be free to move the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for permission to use the land for other purposes, and the competent authority shall pass orders within one month thereafter, in the light of the decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph and untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 (22.12.2016). If permission under Clause 6 is granted, the petitioner may also seek a fresh assessment of the land as garden land under the Kerala Land Tax Act, to be considered by the relevant authorities within one month, in light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to LLMC to consider Ext.P16 in light of KSRSEC report within one month; if allowed, petitioner to pursue Clause 6 permission and possible fresh garden-land assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, guided by cited authorities.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ali Akbar

Respondents

District Collector, Malappuram
Marancherry Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary
Secretary, Marancherry Grama Panchayath
Local Level Monitoring Committee under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 represented by its Convener cum Agricultural Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur
Village Officer, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vinod Ravindranath
• Meena A.
• Saju S.A.
• K.C. Kiran
• M. Devesh
• Vinay Mathew Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, Government Pleader
• Sri C.V. Manvilasan
• Sri P.K. Khaleemudheen
• Smt. P.C. Anil Kumar
• Smt. K. Vidya
• Sri M.V. Vipindas

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ali Akbar owns property in Malappuram district, originally paddy land that was converted to garden land many years before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner challenges the Data Bank entry that classifies the land as paddy land and seeks correction through Ext.P16 before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). The writ petition alleges inaction by the LLMC in considering Ext.P16 and contends that the conversion pre-dates the Act, hence the Act should not govern the property's use; the petitioner argues that, if the land’s status is pre‑Act, he should be free to use the land for other purposes subject to permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The respondents urge maintenance of the Act's reach and compliance with the LLMC process, pending proper examination of Ext.P16 and the relevant reports. The Court relies on the principle that properties converted prior to the Act fall outside its scope, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep and Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, and notes that if pre‑Act status is established, permission under Clause 6 may be sought. The judgment directs the LLMC to consider Ext.P16 in light of the KSRSEC report, within one month, and indicates that, if granted, the petitioner may pursue permission under Clause 6 and, subsequently, relevant garden-land reclassification processes under the Kerala Land Tax Act, guided by related authorities.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine: Land converted prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is not governed by the Act.
Precedent-based approach: Pre-Act status supports relief or exemption from Act’s obligations (cited authorities: Jalaja Dileep; Puthan Purakkal Joseph; Kizhakkambalam).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his land was originally paddy land and converted to garden land many years before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Since the land has been pre‑Act, the Act cannot apply, and the Data Bank’s designation as paddy land should be corrected via Ext.P16. He asserts that, if allowed, he may seek permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to use the property for other purposes, and later pursue fresh assessment as garden land under the Kerala Land Tax Act, subject to appropriate orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the LLMC must evaluate Ext.P16 and related reports in accordance with the Act and preserve the Data Bank’s classification until a proper order is issued. They emphasize adherence to the Act’s framework to protect paddy land resources and argue that any correction must be grounded in statutory provisions and the LLMC process, with due consideration to the applicant’s claimed pre‑Act status and supporting evidence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited by the court to support the proposition that pre-Act conversion exempts the land from the Act’s applicability.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Used to justify that if pre-Act status is established, permission under Clause 6 may be sought.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Guides the process of possible fresh garden-land assessment following Clause 6 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 Ali Akbar v. District Collector, Malappuram & 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** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/2ND KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 18740 of 2016 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER: ---------------------** **ALI AKBAR, S/O.KUNJUMARAKKAR, AGED 52 YEARS, ELAYIDATH HOUSE, POST MARANCHERRY, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN SRI.M.DEVESH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH** **RESPONDENTS: --------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN -676 505** **2. THE MARANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST MARANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 681** **3. SECRETARY, MARANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST MARANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 581** **4. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER CUM-AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, POST MARANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 581** **2/-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 18740 of 2016 (N)** **5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -676 101** ## **6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** **MALAPPURAM, POST MARANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 581** **R1,R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 18740 of 2016 (N)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4011/2004 DTD 3/8/2004 , S.R.O, PONANI** - **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR AFTER INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTIES DTD 28/5/2005** - **P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD 5/12/2007** - **P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DTD 11/2/2009** - **P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DTD 28/3/2009** - **P6 TRUE COP OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE AMRANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD 30/3/2009** - **P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DATE BANK WITH RESPECT TO SY NO.99/1 OF MARANCHERRY VILLAGE** - **P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DTD 23/7/2010 ALONG WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTS** - **P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.24182/2012 DTD 15/10/2012** - **P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD 5/12/2012** - **P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.29801/2012 DTD 5/10/2013** - **P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO. 59/2014 DTD 10/2/2015** - **P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED THEREON** - **P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.8619/2016 DTD 30/3/2016** - **P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DTD 8/9/2010** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 18740 of 2016 (N)** **P16 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16/08/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LAND LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE P17 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.11/2017-18 DATED 16/08/2017 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.P.(c) No.18740 of 2016 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner owns an item of property. It is stated that the said property was originally a paddy land and the same was converted as a garden land several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the property is described as paddy land in the revenue records as also in the Data Bank prepared under the Act, he is unable to use the property for other purposes. According to the petitioner, since the property was converted long prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank as paddy land. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P16 application for correction of the entry relating to that property in the Data Bank. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18740 of 2016 **-2-** the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the fourth respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act in considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P16 application. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the property of the petitioner is one 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 do not apply to the property of the petitioner, he is entitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to W.P.(C) No.18740 of 2016 **-3-** consider Ext.P16 application preferred by the petitioner, having regard to the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) received by the Local Level Monitoring Committee pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 13.01.2017. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the request made by the petitioner has been allowed, the petitioner will be free to prefer an application invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority for permission to make use of the property for other purposes and in that event, the competent authority shall pass orders on that application, within one month thereafter, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order is W.P.(C) No.18740 of 2016 **-4-** granted, the petitioner will be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the land as garden land and if such a request is made by the petitioner, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month thereafter. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** bng