High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-30Writ petitions disposed of with directions to L...

Ali Neetukattill v. District Collector, Alappuzha & Local Level Monitoring Committee

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 38501 of 2017 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-30
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions that Local Level Monitoring Committees consider and pass orders on the Data Bank corrections after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) regarding the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. Petitioners must pay the KSRSEC report fees if directed. Where reports have already been called for, orders should be passed based on those reports. If the petitions are allowed, petitioners are entitled to building permits or building numbers by local authorities, subject to permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The authorities should also consider fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act if requested, in light of the decisions in Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam Mariumma, within three months from receipt of the judgment copy. The directive contemplates proceeding under the KLUO as applicable and not being bound by Circular No.46848/P1/2016.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and pass orders on corrections to the Data Bank after obtaining KSRSEC reports; if relief is granted, building permits or numbers to be issued subject to KLUO permissions; compliance required within three months; may lead to fresh revenue assessment under relevant provisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ali Neetukattill, Valancherry PO, Malappuram

Respondents

The District Collector, Alappuzha, Civil Station, Alappuzha - 688001
Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by the Convener, Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thuravoor - 688532

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Jobby Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K. J. Manuraj

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ali Neetukattill and other petitioners challenge entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, contending that their lands were converted from paddy to garden lands before the Act and therefore should not be subjected to restrictions. They allege that the Data Bank entries prevent construction, building permits, and numbering of buildings, and have filed applications before Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) seeking corrections to Data Bank entries and revenue records. Some petitions also seek building permits or building numbers based on previously issued permits. The petitioners rely on the Supreme Court’s principle that if properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act’s provisions would not apply (Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep). They urge correction of records and permission to use lands for other purposes, potentially under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO). The court notes LLMCs’ power to correct Data Bank mistakes and requires reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) for the position of properties at the Act’s commencement. The judgment directs LLMCs to decide corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports, with fees as directed, within three months. If relief is granted, building permits or numbers must be issued in accordance with KLUO, and a fresh revenue assessment may follow. The decision integrates prior cases such as Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam Mariumma for procedural guidance.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their lands were originally paddy lands but were converted to garden lands before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They assert that since the conversion occurred prior to the Act, the Act should not apply to their properties, and thus entries in the Data Bank must be corrected. They seek corrections in Data Bank and revenue records, and, where applicable, building permits or numbering based on the permits already issued. They urge that where possible, they should be permitted to use the lands for other purposes after necessary permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO), citing R.D.O. v. Jalaja Dileep and Puthan Purakkal Joseph as guiding authorities to a remedy under the Act’s framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (represented by the Government Pleader) rest on the statutory framework empowering LLMCs to correct Data Bank mistakes and direct that corrections be made after obtaining KSRSEC reports. They emphasize that the Data Bank reflects the position at the commencement of the Act and that LLMCs must decide applications for correction, with relevant permissions under KLUO required for any change in land use. They point to precedents like Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam Mariumma to justify procedural steps and timeframes, and contend that the processes must be observed diligently so as to ensure proper land-use decisions and revenue entries.”},

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that conversion of land prior to the Act exempts it from the Act’s applicability, guiding the LLMCs in deciding corrections.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Used to justify that if permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order is granted, building permits and numbers may be issued, guiding the procedural path for relief.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to illustrate time-bound procedural expectations (within one month) for processing requests under the Act.

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 Neetukattill v. District Collector, Alappuzha & Local Level Monitoring Committee 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 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 38501 of 2017 (K) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-----------** **ALI NEETUKATTIL, VALANCHERRY PO, MALAPPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.** **2. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THURAVOOR - 688532.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.38502/2017 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **WP(C).No. 38501 of 2017 (K) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.04.2017. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.38501, 38502, 38565, 38576, 38580, 38581, 38584, 38606 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of W.P.(c).No.38501/17 & con. cases : 2 : buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein 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. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. The petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Banks and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant W.P.(c).No.38501/17 & con. cases : 3 : 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. 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). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining W.P.(c).No.38501/17 & con. cases : 4 : permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P.(c).No.38501/17 & con. cases : 5 : judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, 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. 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 W.P.(c).No.38501/17 & con. cases : 6 : 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 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** rsr