High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-02-17Writ petition disposed of with directions; no c...

Azad P.H., C.K. Benseer and P.H. Babu Ansari v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 38227 of 2015 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhammed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2016-02-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) petitioners’ Form No.4 applications to be considered within one month; (ii) no further report from Village Officer required as land is not in Draft Data Bank and not paddy land; (iii) District Collector to grant necessary permission on remittance of 25% of the fair value per Are; (iv) upon regularisation, land may be used as purayidam and dry land; (v) petitioners may approach the Tahsildar for reassessment after regularisation; (vi) delay in approaching the District Collector to be condoned in light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015 (2) KLT 516). No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Azad P.H., C.K. Benseer, P.H. Babu Ansari

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Thiruvananthapuram; District Collector, Kottayam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam; Tahsildar, Kottayam Taluk; Village Officer, Muttambalam Village; Agricultural Officer & Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate)
• Manoj Ramaswamy

Counsels for Respondents

• T.P. Sajid (Senior Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners claim ownership and possession of three parcels of land in Muttambalam Village, Kottayam Taluk, contiguous and forming a single compact area, with ownership evidenced by sale deeds. They approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to utilise the land for non-agricultural purposes. On 21 December 2015, the High Court directed the Agricultural Officer to file a report regarding the land’s nature. The Agricultural Officer’s report indicated the land is dry, not fit for cultivation, and had been converted to non-agricultural use around twenty years ago. The Court held that the petitioners’ request cannot be considered under clause 6 in light of the amendment to Act 28 of 2008 introducing Section 3A, but found that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation under Section 3A. The Court issued directions: (i) the petitioners’ Form No.4 applications with fees must be considered within one month; (ii) no further report from the Village Officer is required since the land is not included in the Draft Data Bank and is not paddy land; (iii) the District Collector shall grant permission on payment of 25% of the notified fair value per Are; (iv) upon regularisation, the land may be used as purayidam and dry land; (v) the petitioners may approach the Tahsildar for reassessment after regularisation; (vi) delay shall be condoned per a cited precedent. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Section 3A of the Kerala Land Utilisation Act, 2008 (amendment inserting Section 3A)Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they are owners of contiguous plots of land. They sought regularisation under clause 6 KLUO in view of amendments introducing Section 3A, arguing that the land is not suitable for cultivation (dry land) and is not paddy land; upon regularisation, they can utilise the land as purayidam or dry land, after paying 25% of fair value per Are. They relied on the possibility of regularisation under Section 3A and urged prompt processing of Form No.4 applications.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the petitioners’ request could not be considered under clause 6 of KLUO because of the amendment introducing Section 3A; they argued against regularisation under the old clause and stressed the need to follow statutory provisions, with due scrutiny and compliance, including data-bank considerations and land-use categorisations.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015 (2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to justify condoning delay and to guide procedural timelines for processing applications under the court’s directions.

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 Azad P.H., C.K. Benseer and P.H. Babu Ansari 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 38227 of 2015 (C)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. AZAD P.H, AGED 48 YEARS,** - **S/O. LATE A.M.HAMEED RAWTHER, PARAYIL HOUSE, THELLAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2. C.K.BENSEER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, CHEENIKKAPPURATH HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. P.H.BABU ANSARI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.M.HAMEED RAWTHER, PARAYIL HOUSE, THELLAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE ROAD, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686 001.** **3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, THIRUNAKKARA SOUTH ROAD, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 004.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **WP(C).No. 38227 of 2015 (C)** **---------------------------------------** ## **6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER &** **THE CONVENOR OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM - 686 003.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.P.SAJID** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **WP(C).No. 38227 of 2015 (C)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------** - **P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NOS. 27360, 27361, 27362 OF 2015 DT. 17.9.2015.** - **P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 22101/2015 DT. 19.8.2015.** - **P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. KBK/15/15 DT. 31.10.2015 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM.** - **P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 09.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P4(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 09.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P4(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 09.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PW3-BA/190/15-16 DT. 02.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P5(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PW3-BA/190/15-16 DT. 02.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **P5(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PW3-BA/190/15-16 DT. 02.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. PW3-BA(33783)/2015 DT. 18.11.2015 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P6(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. PW3-BA(33783)/2015 DT. 18.11.2015 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **P6(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. PW3-BA(33783)/2015 DT. 18.11.2015 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **P7 - TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS INDICATING THE NATURE OF LAND.** - **P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 30.11.2015 IS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P8(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 30.11.2015 IS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P8(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 30.11.2015 IS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **---------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ## **W.P.(C).No.38227/2015** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17[th] Day of February, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners claim to be the owners and in possession of certain extent of land as shown below: |1stPetitioner|Owner of 1.7652 hectares|In Re-survey Nos.54, 105, 106, 53 and 48|In Block No.18 of Muttambalam Village in Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District|By virtue of sale deeds of SRO Kottayam - SRO Nos.2680/06, 2684/06, 2683/06, 1981/07 and 2686/06| |---|---|---|---|---| |2 nd Petitioner|Owner of 1 hectare and 2.76 Ares|In Resurvey Nos.86, 87|In Block No.18 of Muttambalam Village in Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District|By virtue of sale deeds of SRO Kottayam - SRO Nos.2589/06, 2584/06| ## **`W.P.(C).No.38227/2015`** ## **-:2:-** |3 rd Petitioner|Owner of 75.10 Ares|In Resurvey Nos.51, 50/1|In Block No.18 of Muttambalam Village in Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District|By virtue of sale deeds of SRO Kottayam - SRO Nos.1929/06, 567/07| |---|---|---|---|---| 2. The above properties are lying as contiguous and compact area. The petitioners have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to utilise the land for other purposes. 3. This Court, by order dated 21/12/2015, directed the Agricultural Officer to file a report as to the nature of the land. The learned Government Pleader made available before this Court for perusal, a copy of the report of the Agricultural Officer. The report would indicate that the land is fully unfit for cultivation and the land ## **`W.P.(C).No.38227/2015`** ## **-:3:-** is a dry land and has been converted prior to the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008 and approximately about 20 years ago. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners' request cannot be considered under clause 6 of the KLUO based on the amendment to the Act 28 of 2008 inserting Section 3A. The petitioners are entitled for regularisation of the land in terms of Section 3A. The petitioners also have filed an I.A.No.797/2016 seeking similar relief. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: i. If the petitioners apply to the Collector in form No.4 as appended in the Rules along with the fees, the same shall be considered within one month from the date of receipt of the application along with a copy of this judgment. ## **`W.P.(C).No.38227/2015`** ## **-:4:-** ii. In view of the fact that the land is not included in the Draft Data Bank and the land cannot be treated as a paddy land, further report from the Village Officer is not necessary. ii. The District Collector shall therefore, grant necessary permission on remitting 25% of the notified fair value per Are. iii. Once regularisation order is issued, necessarily, the petitioners are entitled to use the land as purayidam and dry land in accordance with law. iv. The petitioners are also free to approach the Tahsildar for reassessment of land after regularisation order is issued in terms of Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. v. If such applications are filed, the Tahsildar shall consider the applications in the light of the directions of this Court in the ``` W.P.(C).No.38227/2015 ``` ## **-:5:-** judgment in **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** **[2015 (2) KLT 516]** within one month from the date of receipt of the **.** applications In the light of the above directions, the delay involved in approaching the District Collector shall be condoned. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ms