High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-10-12Writ petitions disposed of with directions to L...

Davood P.T. v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3673 of 2017 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-10-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of. Petitioners are permitted to file correction applications in the prescribed form before LLMCs for Data Bank entries, with copies of the judgment and writ petition. LLMCs shall obtain reports from KSRSEC regarding the position of the properties at the commencement of the Act and decide within three months. If the requests under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are found to be granted, competent authorities shall issue building permits or numbers, and consider fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, as the case may be, after due process and in light of Puthan Purakkal Joseph ( supra ) and related decisions, adjusted to local prerequisites. The petitions may be decided according to these findings, subject to Circular No.46848/P1/2016 being superseded by the Court’s direction. If granted, relief will allow construction and re-numbering where appropriate and permit conversion in compliance with KLUO. Hard copies of judgments and writ petitions should be produced, and three months for implementation is mandated.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to LLMCs to process correction applications and to consider permissions under KLUO; building permits/numbers may be issued if entitled; KSRSEC reports to be obtained; decisions within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

DAVOOD P.T., S/O.ABDURAHIMAN KUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MANALIDUKKU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

Respondents

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE
THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUVATTOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KURUVATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP: BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE) 673 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. N.B. Anoop

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M.V. Anandan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The batch petition in W.P.C. Nos. 3673 and connected cases concerns challenges to entries in the Data Bank created under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners claim several of their properties were originally paddy lands converted to garden lands long before the Act and thus should not be subject to the Act’s restraints or noted in the Data Bank for restricted use. They assert the entries prevent construction, building permits, and even numbering of buildings, and seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue-record corrections. They have filed or seek to file applications before Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) for corrections and, where applicable, to obtain permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) to use the land for other purposes. Some petitions also seek building permits or numbers for buildings already constructed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader debated whether the petitions were in prescribed form and whether pre-Act conversions exempt from the Act. The Court held that pre-Act conversions, if proven, fall outside the Act’s reach, but that determination is to be made by LLMCs, which can correct Data Bank entries, after obtaining KSRSEC reports. The Court directed processing within three months and clarified steps under KLUO and related case-law, including Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Jalaja Dileep.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act (mentioned for potential fresh assessment)Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984)Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their lands, converted to garden lands prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, should not be subject to the Data Bank and related restrictions. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and, where applicable, permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to re-designate land use, allowing construction and issuance of building permits or numbers for buildings. They rely on precedents that pre-Act conversions fall outside the Act’s reach and on the LLMCs’ power to amend Data Bank entries, subject to KSRSEC reports, and on enabling provisions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. They request that LLMCs determine the pre-Act status and grant relief accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader and respondents urge adherence to prescribed forms for correction applications and rely on the LLMCs’ discretion to verify pre-Act conversions. They emphasize that eligibility for relief depends on establishing that properties were converted before the Act and that LLMCs must first obtain and consider KSRSEC reports. The proceedings should be guided by relevant authorities and judgments, including Jalaja Dileep and Puthan Purakkal Joseph, to determine applicability of the Act and potential permissions under the KLUO, with timely action within the three-month time frame prescribed by the Court.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that properties converted before the Act are not governed by the Act, i.e., pre-Act status exempts from Act provisions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited in the context of permitting use under Kerala Land Utilization Order, guiding action under Clause 6 of the KLUO and related processes.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to support considerations under KLUO, including timely assessment and processing in light of local orders.

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 Davood P.T. v. District Collector, Kozhikode 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/20TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 3673 of 2017 (H)** **----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **DAVOOD P.T., S/O.ABDURAHIMAN KUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MANALIDUKKU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.B.ANOOP** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** **3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUVATTOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** **5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KURUVATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP: BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE) 673 001.** ## **BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.ANANDAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 5587 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **WP(C).No. 3673 of 2017 (H)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06/04/2015. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KURUVATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 28/02/2015. EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/11/2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) Nos.3673, 5587, 5588, 5590, 11382, 11997, 12110, 13399, 13400, 25383, 29198, 31691, 32524, 32525, 32564, 32593, 32666 of 2017 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of October, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 2 the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 3 building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in _**Revenue Divisional Officer** v._ _**Jalaja Dileep**_ (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act do not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 4 of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See _**Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v._ _**Sub Collector**_ (2015(3) KLT 182)]. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the applications preferred by some of the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank as referred to in the writ petition are not in the prescribed form. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form, wherever such applications are not filed, before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to the properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with copies of the judgment and the writ petition, the same shall be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 5 concerned, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 6 the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in _**Puthan Purakkal Joseph** (supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and WPC 3673/17 & con. cases 7 if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of _**Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma**_ (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests. Sd/- **P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** rsr