High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of by directing the competent authorit...

Dr. Meera James v. Thamarassery Grama Panchayat (WP(C). No. 27675 of 2016) and connected cases

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 27675 of 2016 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2017-11-16
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of by directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to verify that the properties were converted prior to the Act and are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. Conveners of LLMCs to call for property particulars, inspect with notice to petitioners, and submit reports within a week of judgment; if reports are favorable, orders for permission to use land for other purposes and building permits/numbers are to be passed within one month, and petitioners may seek fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Consideration of requests under Clause 6 within one month from reports, guided by Puthan Purakkal Joseph, Shivadasan, and Kizhakkambalam v. Mariumma.
Final Disposition
Disposed of by directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to verify pre‑Act conversions, obtain reports from LLMC conveners with notices to petitioners, inspect properties, and, if reports are favorable, pass orders under Clause 6 within specified time; issue building permits/numbers if entitled and consider fresh garden land assessment as applicable, guided by cited precedents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. Meera James

Respondents

  • Thamarassery Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary
  • The Secretary, Thamarassery Grama Panchayath, Thamarassery P.O, Kozhikode - 673 573
  • The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thamarassery Grama Panchayath, represented by its Convenor, Thamarassery Grama Panchayath
  • The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. K. Shibili Naha
  • • Sri. Saju Raghavan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri K. J. Manuraj (Government Pleader for ADDL R3 & R4)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions concern whether lands formerly used as paddy fields but now converted to garden land fall outside the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners assert that their properties are shown as paddy land in revenue records or are not included in the Data Banks prepared under the Act, which blocks building permits, numbering of structures, and other approvals. They seek directions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 to permit use of the lands for other purposes, including construction, and for corrections in entries in revenue records. The respondents acknowledge errors in the draft and final Data Banks and contend that amendments in 2017 authorize Local Level Monitoring Committees to correct Data Banks, while ensuring properties subject to Data Banks are not misclassified. The petitioners rely on Supreme Court authority in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep to argue that if lands were converted prior to the Act, the Act does not apply; they also cite Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer on the scope of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The court disposes of the petitions by directing the competent authority to verify pre‑Act conversions, obtain reports from LLMC conveners, inspect with notice to petitioners, and, if reports are favorable, grant permissions and issue building numbers within specified timeframes, applying guidance from Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their properties, converted prior to the Act, should not fall under the Act’s Data Banks and that they should be allowed to use their lands for other purposes, including construction, subject to processing under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. They seek corrections in revenue records and data bank entries to reflect pre‑Act status, and building permits or numbers if entitled, along with re‑assessment of lands as garden lands where applicable.

Contentions of Respondents

The government pleader submits that errors exist in the Data Banks and that the 2017 Amendments empower Local Level Monitoring Committees to correct such data. Before granting permission, it must be ensured that the properties in question are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. He relies on Jalaja Dileep to assert exemption for pre‑Act conversions and cites Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Shivadasan to discuss the scope of the KLUO’s powers; the LLMC process and corrections are essential prerequisites before any grant of permission.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveCited as authority that lands converted prior to the Act are exempt from the Act’s application.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182Mentioned OnlyCited for discussion on the scope of the KLUO powers rather than as a binding outcome for the present case.
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer2017(3) KLT 822Mentioned OnlyCited to discuss the scope of KLUO powers; not a direct controlling authority in the decision.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516Mentioned OnlyCited in context of future considerations and timelines under the present 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 Dr. Meera James v. Thamarassery Grama Panchayat (WP(C). No. 27675 of 2016) and connected cases 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 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/25TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 27675 of 2016 (H)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **DR.MEERA JAMES, AGED 27, D/O. T.C. JAMES, THERAKATHINGAL HOUSE, THALAYAD P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 504.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SRI.SAJU RAGHAVAN.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 673 573.** **2. THE SECRETARY, THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THAMARASSERY P.O, KOZHIKODE -673 573.** - **ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED** **3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** - **ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/08/2016 IN I.A. NO.13634/2016.** - **** ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED** **4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.** - **** ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2017 IN I.A. NO.17277/2017.** ## **ADDL. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MANURAJ.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.669 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 27675 of 2016 (H)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/NOTICE B1-11793/15 DATED 04/11/2015.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK PREPARED BY RAROTH VILLAGE (SHOWN AS SERIAL NO.7).** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4 UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF KLUO 1967.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** ## **NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **================== W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016 & 669, 678, 679, 36663, 36778, 36833, 36854, 36855, 36858, 36860, 36871, 36888, 36909, 36921, 36928 & 36935 of 2017 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of November, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The properties of the petitioners referred to in the writ petitions were though paddy fields originally, it is stated that the same have been converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since their properties are described as paddy land in the revenue records, they are unable to make use of the same for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the applications preferred by the petitioners therein for building permits are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 2 **and con. cases** alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. In most of the writ petitions, the specific case of the petitioners is that their properties are shown as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. In the remaining writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that their properties are not shown as paddy land in the Data Banks. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. The applications preferred by the petitioners in this connection are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to grant permission sought for by them to make use of the properties for other purposes. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 3 **and con. cases** properties in the revenue records also. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant 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. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are mistakes in the draft and final Data Banks published under the Act and by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the Local Level Monitoring Committees are authorised to carry out appropriate corrections in the Data Banks. According to the learned Government Pleader, before granting the permission sought for by the petitioners, it has to be ensured that the properties involved in these matters are **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 4 **and con. cases** not properties which are liable to be included in the Data Banks. 4. 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). If the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra) and_ **Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer** (2017(3) KLT 822), this Court has dealt with the scope of the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in dealing with the applications for permission preferred for use of the properties for other purposes. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 5 **and con. cases** disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy by calling for reports from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned that the properties involved in these matters are converted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that the same are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. It is also directed that before forwarding the reports, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees shall, along with the Village Officers concerned, inspect the property with notice to the petitioners to satisfy the claim of the petitioners that the properties are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. For the said purpose, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees are free to call for the particulars of the properties from the petitioners including copies of the title deeds. The reports shall be called for by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 6 **and con. cases** judgment and the same shall be forwarded by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within one month thereafter. If favourable reports are received, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for permission to use their properties for other purposes in the light of the decisions of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra)_ and **Shivadasan** _(supra_ ), within one month from the date of receipt of the reports. 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 **W.P.(C).Nos.27675 of 2016** 7 **and con. cases** if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in cases where they are parties to the writ petitions, 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** SKS