High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-15Writ petition disposed of with directions to re...

Biju P v. District Collector, Palakkad District and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.11859/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-07-15
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the Ext.P10 application (formerly Ext.P15) in light of Ext.P9 and the observations in this judgment, and to pass fresh orders within two months.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to reconsider the house-conversion application in light of Ext.P9 within two months; final orders to be passed afresh.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Biju P

Respondents

The District Collector, Palakkad District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
The Tahsildhar, Palakkad
The Village Officer, Puduppariyaram-II Village
The Principal Agricultural Officer, Palakkad
The Agricultural Officer, Pudupppariyaram
The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Pudupppariyaram Grama Panchayat
The District Level Authorized Committee (D.L.A.C) under Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, represented by RDO

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• U. Balagangadharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Manu Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Biju P, seeks permission to reclaim a paddy land (Nilam) in Puduppariyaram-II Village, Palakkad, under Exts. P11 to P15, for constructing a residential house. The land is described as Revenue land and is part of the Data Bank; petitioner argues there is no nearby paddy cultivation and that he has no other land to build a home. The LLMC previously refused due to concerns that conversion would adversely affect paddy cultivation; the Principal Agricultural Officer and the District Collector also rejected the application. The petitioner challenged those orders in earlier WP(C) 16227/2020, which this Court remitted to LLMC by Ext.P9, holding that the grounds of rejection were untenable. The Government Pleader argued that the land remains paddy land per Data Bank, Thandaper Register, and possession certificates, and that fragmentation would impair drainage in the Padasekharam; the LLMC’s adverse view was based on preservation of paddy cultivation. The Court noted that Ext.P9 is an inter partes judgment binding on the respondents, even if later law declarations exist, and held that the earlier grounds cannot justify rejection now. It allowed the petition in part and directed the respondents to reconsider the Ext.P15/Ext.P10 application in light of Ext.P9, and to pass fresh orders within two months, with a minor postscript correcting numbering in the final order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act – Section 9Kerala Land Utilisation Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Exts.P11 to P15 were not legally sustainable after Ext.P9 (inter partes judgment in WP(C) 16227/2020) set aside the earlier grounds of rejection. He asserts the land is Nilam and part of the Data Bank, with no current paddy cultivation nearby, and that he has no other land to build a home. The LLMC’s adverse report and the P.O.’s/Collector’s rejection cannot be re-urged as grounds. The Court should reconsider the Form-1/Ext.P10 application in light of Ext.P9, following the remand and the earlier judgment, and grant relief within two months.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on Data Bank, Thandaper Register, and Possession Certificate showing the land as paddy land within Murali Padasekharam, currently fallow but with potential drainage issues upon fragmentation. They contend that LLMC identified adverse effects on paddy cultivation, justifying a refusal; Exts.R1–R13 and Ext.P5–P7 reflect the procedural rejections, supported by KLUO/act-based safeguards for Paddy land preservation. They argue that Section 9 benefits are personal to the owner and not transferrable, citing Sudheesh v. State of Kerala.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudheesh v. State of Kerala	2020 (5) KLT 662	Partly Overruled / Limited	Cited by respondents to argue personal benefit of Section 9; this Court notes Ext.P9 binds the parties, limiting the applicability of Sudheesh's broader rule in this case.

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 Biju P v. District Collector, Palakkad District 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 N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 11859 OF 2021** **PETITIONER:** **BIJU P, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O PRABHAKARAN, PRABHA NIVAS, KALLEKULANGARA, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 009** **BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **3 THE TAHSILDHAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUPPARIYARAM-II VILLAGE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678 733.** - **5 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678 733** - **7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (L.L.M.C) PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EX OFFICIO CONVENER (AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PUDUPPARIYARAM AGRICULTURE OFFICE PALAKKAD) 678 733.** - **8 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITEE (D.L.A.C) UNDER CONSERVATION OF PADDY AND WET LAND ACT, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF RDO, PALAKKAD-678 001.** ## **GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU RAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 2 : ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _**Dated this the 15[th] day of July, 2021**_ The petitioner challenges Exts.P11 to P15 and seeks to direct the 2[nd] respondent to consider granting permission for reclamation of paddy land of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 document, for construction of residential building. The petitioner further seeks to declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 which is classified as Revenue land in Revenue records is entitled to be reclaimed for construction of residential building. 2. One Sasikumar and Sumathi Sasikumar purchased 7.5 cents of property in Puthuppariyaram-II Village of Palakkad Taluk from one Ravikumar and other children of one late Gopalan Nair in the year 2007. Smt. Rema purchased 3.5 cents out of the said property from Sasikumar in 2016. The petitioner purchased the said 3.75 cents of land in Survey WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 3 : No.471/59 in Puduppariyaram-II Village in Palakkad Taluk from Smt.Rema as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed dated 13.05.2020. The property is described as ‘Nilam’ in Ext.P1. The property was included in the Data Bank also. 3. The petitioner states that the property is surrounded by a large number of buildings and there is no paddy cultivation anywhere near the vicinity of petitioner’s land. The Revenue Divisional Officer has permitted conversion of land of one Appukuttan under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, which land is adjacent to the property of the petitioner. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had submitted an application seeking permission to convert the land, but the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) did not recommend favourably on the ground that it will adversely affect paddy cultivation. Accordingly, the Principal Agricultural Officer rejected the said application as per Ext.P5 order. The appeal preferred against Ext.P5 order was also rejected by the District Collector as per Ext.P7. WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 4 : 4. The petitioner states that neither the petitioner nor his wife has another piece of land to construct a shelter. They purchased this property with the fond hope of building a house. The petitioner hence filed WP(C) No.16227/2020. This Court set aside Exts.P5 and P6 and remitted the matter back to LLMC, as per Ext.P9 judgment. The petitioner submitted additional documents and Ext.P10 application in Form-1. The LLMC, however, stuck to their stand and gave Ext.P11 report adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner’s application under Form-1 was rejected as per Ext.P13 for the sole reason that the title document was executed after 2008. The Principal Agricultural Officer also gave adverse report on the application for conversion of land of the petitioner as per Ext.P14. The RDO passed Ext.P15 order rejecting the application for conversion of land. The petitioner challenges Exts.P11 to P15. 5. The learned Government Pleader contested the writ petition on behalf of the respondents, producing AnnexuresR1 to R13 documents. The learned Government Pleader WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 5 : submitted that the land is paddy land as per Data Bank, Thandaper Register and Possession Certificate. It is part of Murali Padasekharam which is fallow at present. Drainage and water flow in the Padasekharam is seriously affected due to fragmentation and conversion of land in the area. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The petitioner challenged Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the respondents rejecting the request of his predecessor-in-interest for removing the land in question from Data Bank, by filing WP(C) No.16227/2020. This Court in paragraph 5 of Ext.P9 judgment in WP(C) No.16227/2020 held that the grounds of rejection are no longer tenable or sustainable and consequently set aside the impugned orders. The ground for rejection as contained in Ext.P5 order is that (i) the LLMC has not recommended and that (ii) agriculture in nearby properties will be affected. Ext.P6 has been passed based on Ext.P5. These reasons are found to be untenable in Ext.P9 judgment. Ext.P9 is an inter-parte judgment which has WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 6 : not been subjected to challenge from any quarters. Therefore, the respondents cannot rely on the same grounds to reject petitioner’s request. 8. Ext.P11 proceedings of the LLMC would indicate that the Committee has found the property as fallow land. However, the LLMC observed that conversion of the land would adversely affect paddy cultivation. Based on Ext.P11 proceedings, Ext.P12 rejection order has been passed. This Court is of the opinion that after suffering Ext.P9 judgment, the respondents were not justified in urging the same ground to decline the application of the petitioner. 9. The application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of land for house construction has been rejected as per Ext.P13 for the reason that the land is registered after 2008. In paragraph 7(4) of Ext.P9 judgment, this Court has categorically restrained the respondents from rejecting petitioner’s application on the ground that the subject property has been purchased by the predecessor or by the petitioner only after 12.08.2008. WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 7 : 10. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Sudheesh v. State of Kerala** [2020 (5) KLT 662]_ and contended that the benefit of Section 9 is personal benefit to the owner of the paddy field and will not be available to a successor-in-interest by way of transfer. However, in this case it is to be noted that Ext.P9 is an interparte judgment between the petitioner and the respondents and hence is binding on the respondents in spite of any subsequent declaration of law made by this Court. In the afore circumstances, the orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider Ext.P15 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P9 judgment and the observations made hereinabove, and pass orders afresh within a period of two months. Sd/- ## **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** ## aks/18.08.2021 The word 'Ext.P15' occurring in the last paragraph in page No.7 of the judgment dated 15.07.2021 is corrected as 'Ext.P10' as per order dated 29.09.2021 in IA No.2/2021 in W.P.(C) No.11859/2021(F). Sd/- Joint Registrar WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11859/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO 641/2020 DATED 13.5.2020 OF S.R.O OLAVAKKODE EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO 805/2016 DATED 28.3.2016 OF S.R.O OLAVAKKODE EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT P1. DOCUMENT DATED 7.7.2020 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUPPARIYARAM EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF IMPROVED LOCATION SKETCH OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT P1 DOCUMENT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUPPARIYARAM DATED 7.7.2020 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 1.9.2004 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED 5.7.2019 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2019 TO REMA EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDEER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 6.12.2019 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DAED 24.8.2020 IN WPC 16227/2020 OF THIS HONBLE COURT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO 1 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.9.20210 BEFORE THE LLMC WITH ENDORSEMENTS OF OFFICERS** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF LLMC HELD ON 28.10.2020 EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2020 TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2021** WP(C) No.11859/2021 : 9 : **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.2.2021 EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT** |**RESPONDENTS' **|**EXHIBITS:**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE R1**|**TRUE COPY OF INWARD REGISTER**| |**ANNEXURE R2**|**TRUE COPY OF FORM 1 APPLICATION OF REMA**| ||**AND COPY OF MINUTES BOOK OF THE LLMC**| |**ANNEXURE R3**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER**| |**ANNEXURE R4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC**| |**ANNEXURE R5**|**TRUE COPY OF RDO REJECTION LETTER**| |**ANNEXURE R6**|**TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF LLMC MEETING**| ||**HELD ON 06.11.2020**| |**ANNEXURE R7**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PPM/22/2020-21**| ||**DATED 20.11.2021**| |**ANNEXURE R8**|**TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION**| |**ANNEXURE R9**|**TRUE COPY LETTER NO.T.A(7) 12554/2020**| ||**DATED 18.01.2021**| |**ANNEXURE R10**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE**| |**ANNEXURE R11**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER**| |**ANNEXURE R12**|**TRUE COPY OF MINUTES BOOK**| |**ANNEXURE R13**|**TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.T.A.(7)**| ||**12554/2020**|