Baby Jacob Thundathil v. Sub Collector, Idukki District; District Collector, Idukki District; Local Level Monitoring Committee Alakode

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 35133 of 2016 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **BABY JACOB THUNDATHIL, KALYANTHANI P.O., ALAKOD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE SUB COLLECTOR IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 588.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 588.** **3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ALAKAODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALAKODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 588.** **R1-R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI RAVIKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 35133 of 2016 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/1/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST REPSONDENT** **EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 19/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAKODE VILLAGE** **EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER OF SAID PROPERTY OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAKODE VILLAGE.** **EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT DATA BANK PREPARED U/A. 28 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE ALAKODE.** **EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRL. OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ALAKODE WITHOUT DATED.** **EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA DATED 31/10/2015 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ALAKODE DATED 26/9/2015.** **EXT.P8. TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER** **EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **jma** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 35133 of 2016 N - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 07[th] day of August, 2017 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P1 order passed by the Sub-Collector under Clause (6)(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The petitioner had filed an application for conversion of user of 08.99 hectors situated in Sy.No.86/1 of Alakode village, Idukki District for the purpose of constructing a residential house. The Sub-Collector passed the impugned order refusing the same. 2. Both the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Officer had filed reports stating that the land was converted long prior to the coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy **2** _W.P(C) NO.35133/2016_ land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity “the Paddy land Act” only) and that there exists, four standing coconut trees of age 15 to 18 years. The data bank had also included the property as a converted land. Despite these reports, the Sub- Collector found that the petitioner has another residential building which is also existing in the property and in such circumstances, there can be no conversion of the entire land allowed under Clause (6). It is also stated that the purpose for which the conversion is sought has not been specifically stated in the application and it was only in the hearing that the petitioner submitted he wants to construct a residential house. 3. This Court had called for a report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for brevity the LLMC only) and a report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The petitioner has a total extent of 15.15 Ares of **3** _W.P(C) NO.35133/2016_ property of which 8.99 Ares were sold to one Raheem who had constructed a residential building in the said property. The balance property of the petitioner is stated to be included as a converted paddy land with standing coconut tress of 12 years age. The boundaries of the property are; on the north a PWD Road (Thodupuzha-Poomala Road),on the east residential house of Raheem, on the west a mud road and another garden land. The KSREC has stated that there is no data available of the year 2008 and prior to that. As per the available data from 2010, the survey plot is found to be under vegetation on the western side and constructions on the eastern side. No Change in Land Use pattern is observed is the conclusion of the KSREC. 4. Going by the report of the Additional Tahasildar, the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC, the land is not suitable for cultivation. The data bank also included the land as converted **4** _W.P(C) NO.35133/2016_ paddy land. Section 5(4)(i) of the Paddy land Act specifically speaks of inclusion of cultivable paddy land and wet land. The definition of paddy land also speaks of lands cultivated at least once in a year and though suitable for cultivation, left fallow. 5. The LLMC report and the boundaries indicated clearly shows that the land was not cultivable at the time when the inclusion in the data bank was made. There is further evidence from the remarks made in the data bank as to the property being a converted land. In such circumstance, there is no reason to find the land to be one covered under the Paddy land Act. Essentially the petitioner's land having been converted earlier is covered under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. 6. The application under Clause (6) was rejected by the Sub Collector on unsustainable grounds. The conversion for other purposes, which according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, **5** _W.P(C) NO.35133/2016_ as spoken in RDO v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(2) KHC 109(SC)]; can be for any legitimate purpose. This Court also in Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5[th] Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] held that the conversion can even be for industrial purposes. In such circumstances, there is no reason to specify the other purpose. It is not a crop which is intended to be changed and the nature of the land itself has to be changed from Nilam to garden land. Under the KLU Order, there is also no power conferred on the District Collector/RDO to direct resumption of the paddy land though there is a clause for auctioning the right to cultivate. The same is not practical insofar as the land stands as converted land; with a residential building on its one side and no facility for irrigation. 7. For all the above reasons, Ext.P1 would stand set aside. The Sub-Collector shall allow the conversion of user within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in tune with the decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. **6** _W.P(C) NO.35133/2016_ Sub Collector - 2015 (3) KLT 182. After the conversion is permitted, the petitioner could also seek change of categorisation before the land tax authorities and seek fresh assessment of the land as 'garden land', as has been declared in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath V. Mariumma - 2015(2) KLT 516. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma