High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-10Writ petitions disposed of with directions to R...

Consolidated WP(C).26840/2019 (D) and connected matters: Jayapalan K.P. et al. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Gamaya K.P. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Reena George v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Jagadeesh K.P. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).26840/2019 (D) & connected cases; WP(C).26841/2019 (E); WP(C).26842/2019 (E); WP(C).26891/2019 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-10-10
Court Decision / Holding: The court did not decide the merits. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P5 in all four cases after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, within three months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court clarified that the adjudication on merits is left open and that the RDO may issue any appropriate order with stated reasons in terms of law.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to RDO to consider Ext.P5 in all four petitions after hearing, to pass appropriate orders within three months, and to keep merits open for future remedies.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jayapalan K.P.
Jagadeesh K.P.
Jeena N.
Gamaya K.P.
Reena George

Respondents

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the RDO, Civil Station, Kozhikode-673020
The Village Officer, Katchery Village, Kozhikode-673001
The Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Puthiyara, Kozhikode-673004

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Binoy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Paul Abraham Vakkanal, GP
• Sri. Manuraj K.J, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are four writ petitions under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) challenging inaction by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on applications seeking relief in respect of land not included in the Data Bank or not shown as paddy land or wetland in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The petitioners contend their properties are

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order)Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend that their Ext.P5 applications filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order before the RDO deserve consideration. They argue the properties are not included in the Data Bank nor shown as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register, with the revenue records describing the lands as 'Sthirampunja' (dry land). They assert that post-amendment to the Paddy Land Act (2008), such relief should be processed under the KLU framework, and rely on the Supreme Court directive in Jalaja Dileep for permissive action. They seek a direction to the RDO to consider Ext.P5 and dispose of the petitions expeditiously, after hearing, without pre-judging merits.

Contentions of Respondents

Government Pleader submits that after the Paddy Land Act amendment, such applications can be entertained only under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, not under the KLU Order, and that the RDO cannot proceed under the KLU framework. He cites Geo Peter v. RDO (2019 (4) KHC 400) to support the need for under-27A processing. Thus, the petitions should be dismissed or relegated to fresh 27A applications.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another	2019 (4) KHC 400	Positive	Cited as affirming that post-amendment to the Paddy Land Act, fresh relief must be sought under Section 27A, guiding the present petitioners to file under 27A.
Revenue Divisional Officer and Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Mentioned Only	Cited to reference the Supreme Court direction regarding the handling of properties not in Data Bank or not shown as paddy land, but not treated as binding authority in this judgment.

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 Consolidated WP(C).26840/2019 (D) and connected matters: Jayapalan K.P. et al. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Gamaya K.P. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Reena George v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Jagadeesh K.P. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26840 OF 2019(D)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 JAYAPALAN.K.P AGED 62 YEARS S/O.CHINNAN, JEENA NIVAS, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673011. 2 JAGADEESH K.P., AGED 57 YEARS S/O.CHINNAN, JEENA NIVAS, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE673011.** **3 JEENA N., AGED 49 YEARS W/O.RANJITH N., NARANGAPARAMBATH, BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673015.** **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020.** - **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673001.** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004.** ## **SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL. GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26841/2019(E), WP(C).26842/2019(E), WP(C).26891/2019(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26841 OF 2019(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **GAMAYA K.P., AGED 27 YEARS** **D/O.K.P.JAYAPALAN, JEENA NIVAS, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 011.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.** **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 001.** **3 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 004.** ## **SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26840/2019(D), WP(C).26842/2019(E), WP(C).26891/2019(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26842 OF 2019(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **REENA GEORGE AGED 37 YEARS** **D/O.GEORGE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VIRIKKULAM.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671533** **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, 673020** - **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673001** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004** ## **SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26840/2019(D), WP(C).26841/2019(E), WP(C).26891/2019(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26891 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAGADEESH K.P. AGED 57 YEARS S/O. CHINNAN, JEENA NIVAS, NADAKKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 011** **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, 673 001** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004** ## **SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26840/2019(D), WP(C).26841/2019(E), WP(C).26842/2019(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **5** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that their applications, preferred under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (“KLU Order” in short), before the Revenue Divisional Officer has not been considered and that the same is still pending; and they, therefore, pray that their respective applications, which is produced as Ext.P5 in all these cases, be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 application in these cases cannot be considered since, after the amendment to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (“Paddy Land Act” in short), such applications can be filed and considered only under Section 27A of the said Act, and not under the KLU Order. He says that this has been so declared affirmatively by this Court in various judgments, including in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another**_ (2019 (4) KHC 400) and therefore, that ## WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **6** the petitioners must make fresh applications under Section 27A, if they want any further relief. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 3. In reply, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients had approached the RDO under the KLU Order, because the properties involved are not included in the Data Bank nor are they shown as paddy land or wet land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and Revenue Records. He says that description of the properties shown in the BTR is “Sthirampunja” which, going by the Malabar Manual, means 'dry land'. He says, therefore, that the contention of the learned Government Pleader that fresh applications will have to be filed under Section 27A of the Paddy Land is not cogent. However, to a pointed query from this Court as to why the petitioners made these applications under the KLU Order, even though they assert that the properties in question are dry land in the Revenue Records and BTR, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan submitted that his clients have been WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **7** forced to do so, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Revenue Divisional Officer and Another Vs. Jalaja Dileep**_ [2015(1) KLT 984]. He says that, the petitioners have been advised that every property, which are not included in the Data Bank and not shown as a paddy land in the BTR, will still require to obtain such orders from the competent Authority. 4. Even though I have narrated the afore contentions of the rival parties, I do not deem it necessary that this Court should answer these issues at the first instance since the applications made by the petitioners are before the RDO, invoking the jurisdiction under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. Whether these applications are maintainable, either on account of the reasons afore submitted by the learned Government Pleader or for any other reasons, including that the properties are defined as “Sthirampunja” in the Revenue Records and BTR are matters that the said Authority will have to consider and decide appropriately. WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **8** I, therefore, order these writ petitions directing the RDO to consider Ext.P5 in all these cases, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and after hearing their contentions on these issues. The afore exercise shall be completed by the RDO, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of the rival parties on its merits and that I leave all of them open to be presented before the RDO, in terms of law; and the RDO will also be at liberty to issue any apposite order on these applications; however, recording specific reasons in support of his final decision, so as to enable the petitioners to invoke appropriate remedies in future, if they so require. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** Bng/16.10.19 WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26840/2019** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.110/2015 OF S.R.O. WEST HILL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01.04.2019 GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases ## **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26841/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1304/2016 OF S.R.O.WEST HILL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2017. EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21/06/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/04/2019 GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/06/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **11** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26842/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.552/2018 OF S.R.O.WEST HILL** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2018** **EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01.04.2019 GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION** WP(C).No.26840 of 2019(D)& Con. Cases **12** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26891/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1618/98 OF S.R.O WEST HILL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01.04.2019 GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.**