Divakaran v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **DIVAKARAN AGED 70 YEARS LAKSHMI BHAVAN, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.B.ANOOP SMT.M.M.BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,**| ||**PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,**| ||**MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**CIVIL STATION,**| ||**KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| ||**KOCHI-682 030**| |**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR,**| ||**KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011**| |**4**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE,**| ||**THRIKKAKKARA P.O, PIN-682 021**| |**5**|**THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,**| ||**KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,**| ||**THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,**| ||**KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY-683104**| ## **SRI.MANURAJ KJ, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this court impugning Exts.P2 and P5 orders, issued by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) and by the Land Revenue Commissioner confirming the same, respectively. 2. According to the petitioner, he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.23184 of 2017, when his application preferred under the Kerala Land Utilization Order had not been taken up and considered; and that Ext.P1 judgment had been issued, directing the District Collector to consider the said application in terms of law, by following the mandate of the KLU Order. 3. The petitioner alleges that the District Collector, however, issued Ext. P2 allowing his application under the KLU Order imposing untenable conditions - that he shall not affect construction in the property and that he shall only use it only for the purpose of cultivation of crops like plantain, tapioca and such other. The ## **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 3** petitioner asserts that, Ext.P2 is contrary to the various judgments of this Court and therefore, that he preferred by Ext. P3 Appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, but that the said Authority has confirmed Ext.P2, through Ext.P5 order, but granting liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short). The petitioner says that, therefore, both Exts.P2 and P5 are incompetent and illegal in law. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents - Shri.Manuraj K.J, submits that Ext.P2 order has been issued by the District Collector under the provisions of the KLU Order taking note of the reports of the Village Officer, Thrikkakara North; as also the Agricultural Officer, Kalamassery, in which, the land was found unsuitable for paddy cultivation but suitable for growing of other crops. He says that, the District ## **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 4** Collector was, therefore, justified in issuing Ext.P2 prohibiting the conversion of the property by filling it up but in allowing the petitioner to grow other crops. He then submits that the Land Revenue Commissioner has confirmed this for valid reasons and that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner through Ext.P5 order, since he has been given liberty to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. **==> picture [319 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** submissions and examine the materials available, it is ineluctable that the Land Revenue Commissioner, while confirming Ext.P2 order, has granted liberty to the petitioner to move under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. This obviously means that the property has been converted and that the Land Revenue Commissioner has concluded that the petitioner must obtain the opportunity of regularizing such conversion in terms of law, because the reports available also seem to indicate that such conversion was made prior ## **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 5** to the year 2008 when the Paddy Land Act had been brought into effect. 6. I, therefore, fail to understand why the District Collector had issued Ext.P2 and the Land Revenue Commissioner had confirmed the same through Ext.P5, as per which, the petitioner can only use the property for growing of other crops and not for any other purpose. This is particularly because this restriction goes contrary to the various judgments of this Court, including _**Aishabeevi**_ _**v. Superintendent of Police** [2014 (3) KLT_ _1078]_ _**and Shivadasan M.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2017 (3) KLT 822]_ _**;**_ which have ineluctably declared the law that when permission is granted for the conversion of a land under the KLU Order, then it can be used for any purpose other than for Paddy cultivation. 7. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that Exts.P2 and P5 cannot obtain the imprimatur of this Court and that the District Collector must reconsider the matter adverting to the directions in Ext.P1 **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 6** judgment strictly under the provisions of the KLU Order. 8. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I set aside Exts.P2 and P5 and direct the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector to reconsider the application of the petitioner under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilization Order and not under the Paddy Land Act; and thereafter, issue an appropriate order thereon, after following due procedure and adverting to the reports of the competent Authority and also, if required, obtaining the satellite images from the Kerala Satellite Remote Sensing and Environment Center (KSREC). **==> picture [319 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** completed by the District Collector, after also affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. I make it clear that I have not considered the petitioner's contentions on ## **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 7** its merits and therefore, that it is up to the District Collector to take a final decision as he may deem fit, as per law, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. This writ petition is thus ordered. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **MC/1.11.19** **WP(C).No.27347 OF 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2017 IN WPC NO. 23184 OF 2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.07.2017 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 27.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2019 IN WPC NO. 3615 OF 2019 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.06.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.10.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**