Asma Beevi, Aisha Beevi and Ranziya v. State of Kerala, Kadungaloor Grama Panchayat, Local Level Monitoring Committee and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- Judgment Date
- 2017-08-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of; No costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Asma Beevi
- Aisha Beevi
- Ranziya
Respondents
- State of Kerala, rep. by Principal Secretary to Department of Local Administration, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
- Kadungaloor Grama Panchayat (Special Grade), Office of the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat, Muppathadam P.O., Aluva-683 110
- Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kadungaloor-683 110
- District Collector, Ernakulam (Addl.R4)
- Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi (Addl.R5)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor)
- • Sri George Varghese KizhaKkambalam
- • Sri N. Rajesh
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar (Government Pleader)
- • Sri Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan (SC)
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, Asma Beevi, Aisha Beevi and Ranziya, challenge the revocation of three building permits issued by Kadungaloor Grama Panchayat for separate structures on a jointly purchased 5-acre land in Alangad Village (Sy.No.379/2/1). The permits were granted (Exts P10–P12) but were later revoked by Panchayat orders (Exts P14–P16) on the ground that the land is described as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioners contend that the land is shown as purayidam in tax receipts (_exts P5–P5c_) and the data bank does not classify it as paddy land; they have already commenced construction. They seek refuge under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, seeking conversion of user from nilam to garden land. The petition states that if the land is not included in the data bank, the application should be considered in accordance with M.K. Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2017 (3) KLT 822, and after such conversion they may apply for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act to treat the land as garden land as held in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma, 2015 (2) KLT 516. The Additional 5th respondent would obtain a report from the Agricultural Officer regarding data bank inclusion. If conversion is granted under Clause (6), Exts P18–P20 would be cancelled and construction may proceed per the original permits. The petition is disposed of with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that the revocation of their building permits lacks a lawful basis since they had secured three separate permits (Exts P10–P12) and commenced construction. They rely on tax receipts showing land as purayidam and on tax data not listing the land as paddy; they contend that the data bank does not designate the property as nilam. They request conversion of the land’s use under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, to permit garden land and permit continued construction subject to fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act after conversion. If the Additional 4th/5th respondents grant conversion, the Panchayat would rescind Exts P18–P20 and allow construction per the original permits. They also cite M.K. Shivadasan v. RDO, 2017 (3) KLT 822, as a guiding precedent for processing such conversion proposals within two months of certified judgment copy.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend the permits were revoked due to land being described as nilam in the Basic Tax Register and require classification of land use before permitting further construction. They argue that conversion of user under Clause (6) must be processed by the authorities after obtaining reports, maintaining consistency with land use norms and data bank status. They rely on the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and related data bank procedures, awaiting reports from the Agricultural Officer; if conversion is granted, the Panchayat would cancel the revocation orders and permit continuation of construction.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| M.K. Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2017 (3) KLT 822 | Positive | Cited to indicate that where the land use status is in doubt or not reflected in the data bank, conversion of user under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 can be considered and decided in accordance with the cited decision. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma | 2015 (2) KLT 516 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that conversion of land use to garden land can influence subsequent assessment and land use status, aiding resolution of the case. |
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 Asma Beevi, Aisha Beevi and Ranziya v. State of Kerala, Kadungaloor Grama Panchayat, Local Level Monitoring Committee and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.