Baby Azeez vs State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P2, P4 and P6 set aside; Writ petition allowed. The court held that the orders were passed arbitrarily and not in accordance with the KLU Order, given the lack of conclusive proof of continuous paddy cultivation on the 50-cent plot and the improper reliance on revenue extracts.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Exts.P2, P4 and P6 set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Baby Azeez

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary Agricultural (NCA) Department, Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram
The Land Revenue Commissioner Commissionarate of Land Revenue Thiruvananthapuram
The Sub Collector Kasaragod at Kanhangad
The Village Officer Hosdurg

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Sasindran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Jose Adiyodi, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P4 and P6 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 (KLU Order). Ext.P2 is an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the petitioner to reconvert his 50-cent land and to cultivate paddy, with a consequent fine. The petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P2, resulting in Ext.P4 confirming the order. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved for revision, which was dismissed by Ext.P6. The court assesses whether the KLU Order permits coercive reconversion or imposition of fines where the land’s nature is not clearly established as paddy cultivation. It notes the property’s small area (50 cents) and its position amid garden lands and a public road, with no evidence of ongoing or previous paddy cultivation. The court observes that revenue extracts cannot alone determine cultivation status, as terms like “Nilam” on revenue records do not conclusively prove paddy cultivation. Citing Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat to illustrate the limitations of relying on revenue descriptions, the court concludes that Exts.P2, P4 and P6 were issued arbitrarily and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the challenged orders are quashed, restraining any coercive reconversion. The judgment underscores that land use must not be arbitrarily constrained where evidence of cultivation is tenuous and the land can be better utilised.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts.P2, P4 and P6 were issued arbitrarily under the KLU Order, relying on revenue extracts to conclude that the land was cultivated with paddy. The 50-cent plot is not demonstrated to be a paddy field, and revenue descriptions like 'Nilam' do not prove cultivation. The Court should prevent coercive measures and allow the land to be used for a better purpose, especially since the KLU requires permission to change cultivation and imposes no punitive fine without clear proof of persistent paddy cultivation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the land had been converted away from paddy cultivation, invoking the KLU Order’s requirement to reconvert land to paddy or seek permission for other crops. They maintain the petitioner is bound to revert to paddy cultivation where the law applies, reflecting the order’s aim to regulate land use and ensure continuity of paddy cultivation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009(3) KLT 899	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate limitations of relying on revenue records for cultivation status; the court did not adopt it as a controlling precedent in this case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 36487 of 2007 (R)** **-------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **BABY AZEEZ,AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL AZIZ NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KANHANGAD PO, HOSDRUG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL (NCA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONARATE OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE SUB COLLECTOR KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER HOSDURG.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 36487 of 2007 (R)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-** ## **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 2957/04 DATED 6.8.2004 OF SRO, HOSDRUG** - **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER OF SUB-COLLECTOR KASARGOD, DATED 26.04.2005 ASKING THE PETITIONER TO CULTIVATE PADDY IN THE 50 CENTS OF PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS FROM DATE OF THE ORDER** - **EXHIBIT P2(a): COPY OF FORM-E GIVEN ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2 DATED 26.04.2005** - **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER ON 23.06.2005 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P2** - **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER NO. LR(A)1-31468/05 DATED 15.02.2006 DISMISSING EXHIBIT P3** - **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF REPORT DATED 27.11.2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARGOD SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF ORDER, G.O.(RT) 1147/07/AD DATED 27.06.2007 DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **DCS** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.36487 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of June 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P4 and P6. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the petitioner to reconvert his land and to cultivate paddy. He was also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- per cent. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same and Ext.P4 is the appellate order which confirmed Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 the petitioner preferred revision before the Government and by Ext.P6 the Government also refused to interfere in the matter. Orders impugned are passed by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 (hereinafter referred as the 'KLU order'). 2. The KLU Order stipulates that if any property was cultivated with a food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately prior to 1967 or after 1967 the Collector has the jurisdiction to call upon the owner/holder of the land to cultivate the property with the same food crop. If any person requires to convert the land for cultivation of any other food crop or for any W.P.C.No.36487/2007 2 other purpose he requires permission from the Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer is the designated officer. However, there is no provision to impose any fine on the owner/holder of the land. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader . 4. It is seen from the records that there is a report Ext.P5 issued by the Agricultural Officer which indicates that this property having an extent of 50 cents is lying as an uncultivated land and all the three sides of the property is garden land and the other side is a public road. This is not a property which is lying adjacent to any paddy field or large scale paddy cultivation is being carried on in the area. Admittedly at the time when the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued the order there was no paddy cultivation in the said land and on what basis the RDO had assumed that the properties were cultivated with paddy is not known. The authorities referred to a description of the property available in the revenue records. Revenue records cannot be the basis of finding as to whether a particular land was being cultivated with paddy or not. In the W.P.C.No.36487/2007 3 revenue extract the nature of land is specified only for the purpose of imposing tax on the property. Even if certain lands are mentioned as 'Nilam' or other description, it does not necessarily mean that paddy was being cultivated. In certain areas even marshy lands are also termed as 'nilam'. The meaning of 'nilam' does not by itself indicate that the property is being cultivated with paddy. Therefore it was wrong on the part of the authorities concerned to have referred only to the revenue extracts in order to find that the property was cultivated with paddy. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of this Court in **Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [** 2009(3) KLT 899] to support this view. 5. The learned Government Pleader however submits that since the paddy field had been subsequently converted, the petitioner is under obligation to reconvert the land and to cultivate paddy. I am not satisfied with the contentions urged on behalf of the Government as I have already held that the nature of land as specified in the revenue extract cannot be the reason for a finding that the property was cultivated with paddy for a continuous period of three years. This is also a property having W.P.C.No.36487/2007 4 an extent of only 50 cents which can be utilised for various purposes and it is not in the interests of justice to restrain a person from using such property for a better purpose. Therefore it could be seen that Exts.P2, P4 and P6 happened to be passed on arbitrary basis and hence bad in law. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that Exts.P2, P4 and P6 are liable to be set aside and I do so. The Writ petition is allowed as above. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.36487/2007 5 W.P.C.No.36487/2007 6