High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-12-11Writ petitions disposed of with directions for ...

Dr. Sophiammal Nattar P. v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam; Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram; Accountant General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28124 of 2017 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Judgment Date: 2017-12-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions that petitioners may file applications in the prescribed form before Local Level Monitoring Committees for correction of Data Bank entries. LLMCs, after obtaining reports from KSRSEC on property positions at the Act’s commencement, shall consider the applications. If the petitions are allowed, petitioners may move under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to use their properties for other purposes, and local authorities shall issue building permits or numbers accordingly, subject to the decisions of the LLMC. If applicable, petitioners may seek fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act for garden land reclassification, as per relevant precedents, within one month of the LLMC decision. All such orders should be issued within three months from the date of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for correction of Data Bank entries via LLMCs, consideration of KLULO-based permissions, and related post-LLMC actions within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Sophiammal Nattar P., Associate Professor (Retd.), Fatima Mata National College, Kollam

Respondents

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam
Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Accountant General (A&E), Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Muhammed Haneeﬀ
• Sri. M.H. Asif Ali

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Nisha Bose, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which classify pre-Act garden lands as paddy land. The petitioners contend their properties were converted to garden lands before the Act’s inception and should not be governed by its Data Bank regime, which restricts use and construction. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue-record entries, as well as permission for building permits and number assignments where applicable. The court acknowledges that if properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act does not apply to them, a proposition affirmed by a cited Apex Court decision, and emphasizes that Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) are empowered to correct Data Bank mistakes. It clarifies that, where pre-Act conversion is shown, petitioners may undertake development after obtaining permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) and, where relevant, proceed under Clause 6 of the KLUO to permit usage other than garden land. The court directs petitioners to file applications in the prescribed form for correction before LLMCs, with references to judgments and KSRSEC reports, and requires such reports to be obtained before orders are passed. If allowed, LLMCs will issue permits or numbers, and petitioners may pursue fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act where applicable, following the guiding precedents, notably Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam cases. The judgment repeatedly emphasizes timely action (three-month deadline) for compliance and correction of the Data Bank entries, with dispositions contingent on LLMC findings and KLULO approvals.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their properties, converted to garden lands before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, should be excluded from the Data Bank entries. They seek correction of entries and, where applicable, issuance of building permits and numbers after obtaining permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO). They submit that LLMCs have the power to correct Data Bank mistakes and that pre-Act conversions fall outside the Act’s reach, with opportunities to pursue appropriate permissions and possible reclassification.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that corrections to the Data Bank require LLMC action and that the Act’s regime applies to the properties unless proven to be pre-Act conversions. They emphasize the need for procedural correctness, LLMC reports from KSRSEC, and compliance with KLULO procedures for issuing permits or numbers where the petitioners are found eligible.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that properties converted prior to the Act are not subject to its provisions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited to justify invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and related procedural remedies.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to support fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act after KLULO reconsiderations.
W.P.(C). No. 26857/2015 and connected cases	W.P.(C). No. 26857/2015	Mentioned Only	Previously decided by this Court; cited as a reference in the batch but not directly applied in the operative part.

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. Sophiammal Nattar P. v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam; Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram; Accountant General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 28124 of 2017 (M)** **-----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **DR. SOPHIAMMAL NATTAR.P, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RTD.), FATIMA MATA NATIONAL COLLEGE, RESIDING AT 'MARYTONCAS', JNRA 47/A, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM- 691 021.** ## **BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM- 691 001.** **2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** ## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 29125 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **WP(C).No. 28124 of 2017 (M)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O(P)NO.171/99/H.EDN DATED 21.12.1999.** - **EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF G.O(P)NO. 58/2010/H.EDN DATED 27.03.2010.** - **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAY AND SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AND HER JUNIOR IN SERVICE.** - **EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.02.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO. 26857/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 27.10.2016** - **EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO. 1064/2017 DATED 08.06.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO. 488/2017 DATED 06.06.2017.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **--------------------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) Nos.28124, 28390, 36390, 39392 of 2016** ## **&** **W.P.(C) Nos. 3524, 3582, 9365, 10573,** **28276 of 2017** **-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -2- the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that 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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -3- 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 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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -4- 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 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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -5- 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 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 the 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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -6- 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, 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 WPC 28124/16 & con. cases -7- 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 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