High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of by directing the competent authorit...
Asharaf and others v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 35669 of 2016 (G)
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2017-11-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions disposed of with directions: the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order must obtain reports from the Conveners of Local Level Monitoring Committees to verify that the properties in question were converted prior to the Act and are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. The Conveners, with Village Officers, must inspect the properties with notice to the petitioners. Reports must be sent within a week; the Conveners must forward them within one month. If reports are favorable, the competent authority shall decide the applications for permission to use properties for other purposes under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order within one month from receipt of reports, and issue building permits or numbers if entitled. Petitioners may also move for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act for lands reclassified as garden lands, in light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, within one month from their requests.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of by directing the competent authority to verify pre-Act conversions, obtain reports from Local Level Monitoring Committees, inspect properties with notice, and decide applications under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order within specified timeframes; upon favorable reports, issue building permits or numbers and consider fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act where applicable.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Asharaf
- Rasheeda
- Aneesha
- Arshida
Respondents
- Kozhikode Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Secretary
- Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
- Local Level Monitoring Committee, rep. by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Nellikode
- Revenue Divisional Officer, Civil Station, Kozhikode
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri Franco T.J.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri K.D. Babu, SC
- • Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal, Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitions challenge the application of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) to properties that were converted to garden land before the Act and seek permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to use the land for other purposes, including construction, or correction of entries in revenue records and Data Banks. The petitioners argue that if their properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act would not apply, and they should be allowed to carry out other permissible uses and obtain building permits and numbers. In several petitions the buildings are not numbered, or permits refused, due to entries showing the land as paddy land. The respondents concede there are errors in the Data Banks and contend that under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017, Local Level Monitoring Committees may correct Data Banks, but any permission must first ensure the property is not liable to inclusion in the Data Bank. The Court cites Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984) to support pre-Act non-application of the Act, and Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma as guiding precedents on the scope of authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitions are disposed of by directing the competent authority to verify pre-Act conversion, call reports from Local Level Monitoring Committees, and decide applications under Clause 6 of the KLUO within specified time; if favored, issue building permits or numbers, and allow fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act where applicable.
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 several of their lands are shown as paddy land in revenue records and Data Banks, preventing building permits and numbers. They argue that if their lands were converted prior to the Act, the Act would not apply, and they should be permitted to use the properties for other purposes after obtaining permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and, where appropriate, be reassessed as garden lands. They seek corrections in Data Banks and timely consideration of permissions and building numbers. They urge adherence to precedents that limit the Act’s reach on pre-Act conversions and support issuing permission and permits if entitled.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents acknowledge errors in Data Banks and permit corrections under the 2017 Amendment Rules. They argue that before granting any permission, it must be ensured that the land is not liable to be included in the Data Bank and that the Local Level Monitoring Committees’ reports are essential to this determination. They emphasize that the Act applies to properties post-Act and that orders must be issued in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilization Order, including the possibility of maintaining data accuracy and ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep | 2015(1) KLT 984 | Positive | Cited as authority that if conversion occurred prior to the Act, the Act would not apply to the property. |
| Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector | 2015(3) KLT 182 | Positive | Cited as a controlling precedent for the scope of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order. |
| Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2017(3) KLT 822 | Positive | Cited to reflect court’s approach on the scope of applications under the Land Utilization Order. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma | 2015(2) KLT 516 | Positive | Cited regarding considerations for property reclassification and related permissions. |
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 Asharaf and others v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation 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**
**FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/26TH KARTHIKA, 1939**
**WP(C).No. 35669 of 2016 (G) ----------------------------**
## **PETITIONERS:**
**-----------**
**1. ASHARAF, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, 28/1982-C, ANEESHA MANZIL, KIZHAKKAIPARAMBA, KUTHIRAVATTOM.PO.,**
**KOZHIKODE-673016.**
**2. RASHEEDA,**
- **AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.ASHARAF, 28/1982-C, ANEESHA MANZIL, KIZHAKKAIPARAMBA, KUTHIRAVATTOM.PO., KOZHIKODE-673016.**
**3. ANEESHA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ASHARAF, 28/1982-C, PARAMBATHATTIL, KANDATHRA KAVE, NELLIKKODE.PO, KOZHIKODE-673016.**
**4. ARSHIDA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SAMEER, 24/2150-A, MUBARAK MANZIL, KOYA MOOLIPARAMBIL, MANKAVU PO., KOZHIKODE-673007.**
**BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J.**
**RESPONDENTS:**
- **------------**
**1. KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673032.**
**2. SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD,KOZHIKODE - 673032**
**--2--**
**--2--**
## **WP(C).No. 35669 of 2016 (G)**
**---------------------------**
**3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE-673032.**
- ***ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED**
**4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.**
**ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 IN IA.18249/2017.**
**R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.D.BABU, SC R3 & ADDL. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.10177/2017 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**mbr/**
## **WP(C).No. 35669 of 2016 (G)**
## **----------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
|**PETITIONERS' **|**EXHIBITS:**|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P1:**|<br>**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT**|
||**DATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**|
||**NELLIKKODE.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE**|
||**DATED 28.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**|
||**NELLIKKODE.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT**|
||**DATED 29.08.1991 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT**|
||**DATED 29.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5:**|<br>**PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING EXISTENCE OF RESIDENTIAL**|
||**BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6:**|<br>**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**|
||**2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2016.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER**|
||**DATED 01.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2016 IN**|
||**WPC NO.14508/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P9:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.10.2017 FILED**|
||**BEFORE THE R.D.O, KOZHIKODE.**|
|**RESPONDENTS' **|**EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**|
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
**mbr/**
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
**================== W.P.(C).Nos.35669 of 2016 & 10177, 10571, 16947, 31212, 36875, 37020, 37044, 37073 & 37093 of 2017**
**------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] 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. 35669 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. 35669 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. 35669 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. 35669 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. 35669 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. 35669 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