High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-23Disposed of

C.J. Thomas v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda and Local Level Monitoring Committee, Chalakudy

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-23
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of; Ext. P5 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext. P6 application of the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, in light of the directions in Ext. P1 judgment, as expeditiously as possible and within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.J. Thomas

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda, Thrissur District
Local Level Monitoring Committee Chalakudy represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chalakudy, Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.M. Krishnakumar
• P.R. Reena

Counsels for Respondents

• GP SMT. Devishree
• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, C.J. Thomas, owns 33.53 cents of land in East Chalakkudy village (Sy. Nos. 451/8, 452/8, 453/3, 452/1) described as Nilam in revenue records and Data Bank. He filed Ext. P6 under Clause 6A of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Despite a 2017 court direction (Ext. P1) to consider Ext. P6 within a month, and after jurisdiction was bifurcated to Irinjalakkuda, the file was transferred and later the 1st respondent directed a fresh application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner argued Ext. P1 directed consideration under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and that Ext. P6, filed before the 2017 cutoff for 27A, must be dealt with under the older regime, citing Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. RDO, Fortkochi. The respondents contended Ext. P6 was not traceable in their office, necessitating a 27A application. The Court held Ext. P5 to be set aside and directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P6 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, in light of Ext. P1, within two months, expeditiously. The judgment underscores adherence to pre-27A provisions for pre-cutoff applications and rejects retrofitting the new regime to those applications.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 6A of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's case rests on Ext. P6 filed on 12.06.2016 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. This Court's Ext. P1 judgment (24.11.2017) directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, to consider Ext. P6 within one month after obtaining required reports, and, as per prior jurisprudence, any such pre-cutoff application must be evaluated under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. The petitioner relies on Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. RDO, Fortkochi (2020 (4) KHC 764) to argue that Section 27A cannot be invoked for an application filed before its introduction on 30.12.2017. Since Ext. P6 was submitted before the cutoff, it should be considered under the KLU order’s Clause 6(2). The Ext. P5 directive to file under 27A is untenable, and Ext. P6 must be expeditiously considered within two months, as directed by Ext. P1.

Contentions of Respondents

The 1st respondent contends Ext. P6 was not available in their office, necessitating a fresh application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008. After jurisdiction was bifurcated, the file was transferred to Irinjalakkuda, with Ext. P2 noting this transfer. Ext. P5 directed the petitioner to submit it under Section 27A, and the counter affidavit asserts adherence to post-cutoff procedures. The respondents emphasize the need to apply the 2008 Act regime consistently, and argue that Ext. P6 could not be considered in its original form given the post-cutoff amendments. They contend the petitioner must pursue the 27A route for lands affected after the cutoff, and the Court should not override administrative processes that align with the amended statute.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015 (2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the court’s direction to consider Ext. P6 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order and to give expeditious consideration in light of the cited decision.
Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi and Others	2020 (4) KHC 764	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that applications filed before the introduction of Section 27A (on 30-12-2017) must be considered under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, not under 27A.

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 C.J. Thomas v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda and Local Level Monitoring Committee, Chalakudy 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` C.J.THOMAS AGED 61 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, CHENGINIMATTAM HOUSE, CHALAKUDY.P.O, THRISSUR., PIN – 680 307. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJAKAKDUA. THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680 307. 2LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHALAKUDY REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680 307. BY ADV. GP SMT. DEVISHREE , GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 33.53 cents of land (13.57 Ares) of land in Sy.Nos.451/8, 452/8, 453/3, and 452/1 of East Chalakkudy village, Ernakulam District. 2. The property of the petitioner was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records and included as ‘Nilam’ in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur under Clause 6A of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short, ‘the KLU order’). Since Ext.P6 application was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17855 of 2016 and this court, by Ext.P1 judgment dated ``` WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023 ``` 3 24.11.2017, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur the 3[rd] respondent therein to consider the application within a period of one month with notice to the petitioner and calling for report from the Agricultural Officer and in the light of the judgment in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015 (2) KLT 516. In the meantime, on an application made in Form No.5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act, 2008’ the property of the petitioner was removed from the Data Bank and the same was gazetted as per Ext.P4. 3. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer was bifurcated with respect to Thrissur and Irinjalakkuda divisions and the jurisdictional area in respect of the petitioner’s property ``` WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023 ``` 4 now vests with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda. 4. By Ext.P2 letter, the petitioner was informed that, the file relating to Ext.P6 has been transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, the 1[st] respondent herein. While so, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner directing him to file an application under Section 27 A of the Act, 2008 for changing the nature of the land. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 contending that, when there is already a direction in Ext.P1 judgment to consider Ext.P6 application filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order, the 1[st] respondent cannot insist the petitioner to submit an application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008. ``` WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023 ``` 5 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1[st] respondent wherein it is stated that, Ext.P6 application was not available in the office of the 1[st] respondent and therefore, the petitioner was asked to file a fresh application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and along with the same, he has produced a copy of Ext.P6 application. According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent cannot insist for filing an application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 since there is already a direction by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment to consider Ext.P6 application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi and Others [2020 (4) KHC 764], `WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023` 6 wherein it is held that, when an application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order is filed before the cut off date of 30.12.2017; ie., before the introduction of Section 27A of the Act, 2008 the said application has to be considered only in accordance with Clause 6(2) of the KLU order and an application under Section 27A cannot be insisted. 7. Since the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 application before the date of introduction of Section 27A of the Act, 2008, in the light of the directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the 1[st] respondent has to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the KLU order. The 1[st] respondent cannot insist for an application under Section 27A. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and there will be a direction to the 1[st] `WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023` 7 respondent to consider Ext.P6 application of the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order in the light of the directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ## MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ `WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023` 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18076/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.17855/2016 DATED 24.11.2017. ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DD:2620/2017 WRONGLY DATED AS 23.07.2015. ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.09.2020 OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE. ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.02.2021 BY WHICH THE LAND DATA BANK OF CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY. ``` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.6.2020 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA.` ``` Exhibit P6True copy of the application filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer wrongly dated as 12.06.2016. ```