High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-01Writ petition allowed; no costs; orders directi...

E.P. Haris and Roshni Haris v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8125 of 2017 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The LLMC Convenor is directed to issue a certificate removing the petitioners’ land from the data bank within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners may apply for conversion of user under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967; once converted, they may seek a change of categorisation before the land tax authorities, including reclassification as garden land, as per cited authorities. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; no costs; orders directing removal from data bank and enabling subsequent conversion and re-categorisation processes.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

E.P. Haris
Roshni Haris

Respondents

Kozhikode Municipal Corporation (represented by its Secretary)
The Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Field Officer, Puthiyara, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.P.Vijayan
• Sri.V.N.Haridas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.K.D.Babu, Senior Counsel
• Sri.Ravikrishnan, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, E.P. Haris and Roshni Haris, challenge Ext.P9, a communication from the Agricultural Officer informing them of the LLMC’s decision not to remove their land from the data bank. They own 3.49 acres in RS No. 42/1B at Kottuli village and had sought construction of a commercial building on the site. They produced Exts P1–P3 showing tax receipts, possession certificate, and a building tax receipt, while Ext.P4 records the Corporation’s rejection on the ground that conversion of user or Paddy Land Act compliance was required before any construction. The Corporation contends that, since the land is treated under Paddy Land Act restrictions, construction cannot proceed without conversion. The petitioners approached LLMC with Ext.P7, which Ext.P9 declined. The Court directed the LLMC Convenor to inspect and file a report; the report indicates a building exists on the land but does not clarify from when it has existed. The LLMC, in its May 2, 2017 meeting, decided not to remove the land from the data bank citing wet-land status, though the report shows no wetland. The Court concludes the land was converted long prior to the Paddy Land Act and, relying on Kerala Land Utilisation Order provisions and related circulars, directs removal from the data bank within two weeks and allows conversion under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, with subsequent re-categorisation possibilities. The writ petition is allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 3A of the Paddy Land Act, 2008 (deleted)Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Paddy Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the land, comprising 3.49 acres, existed long before the Paddy Land Act and showed tax receipts and possession certificates; they sought construction of a commercial building and urged that Section 3A of the Paddy Land Act has been deleted, removing a major barrier. They argued that there is no wet land and that the LLMC’s refusal to remove the land from the data bank is incorrect; they relied on Kerala Land Utilisation Order provisions (Clause 6) for conversion of user and on Circular 2016/LSGD guidance, claiming pre-Paddy Land Act conversions should allow development and subsequent re-categorisation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintained that construction could not proceed without conversion of land use either under the Paddy Land Act or under relevant provisions; Ext.P9 and LLMC findings suggested wet-land considerations; the Government Pleader highlighted that Circular 994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD discusses residential scenarios, implying restricted application for commercial projects; the respondents emphasized that legal procedures for conversion and adherence to statutory norms must be followed.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015 (1) KLT 984 SC	Positive	Cited as controlling authority that conversion prior to Paddy Land Act must be sought from the District Collector/RDO under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order; the judgment is used to justify pre-Act conversion requirements.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Quoted to support the proposition that after conversion, the appropriate authority should consider applications under the approved procedure, aligning with LLMC and RDO processes.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma	2015 (2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to justify post-conversion possibilities and re-categorisation pathways for land, reinforcing the sequence of conversion followed by tax categorisation changes.
WPC 40133 of 2016	WPC No. 40133 of 2016	Mentioned Only	Cited as an exhibit (Ext.P8); not engaged in the reasoning or formal treatment in the 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 E.P. Haris and Roshni Haris v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 8125 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. E.P. HARIS, RESIDING AT 19/1504C, GRACE, CHALAPPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE- 673 002.** **2. ROSHNI HARIS, W/O. E.P. HARIS, RESIDING AT 19/1504C, GRACE, CHALAPPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 002.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SRI.V.N.HARIDAS.** **RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------** **1. KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN -673 032.** **2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN -673 032.** **3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN -673 032.** **4. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER), PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 032.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.K.D.BABU, SC. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 8125 of 2017 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTOOLI.** **EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLI.** **EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.** **EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.07.2016.** **EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OFFICE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.** **EXT.P6 PHOTOGRAPHS EXHIBITING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.12.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 40133 OF 2016 DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J** ## **===================== W.P(C) No.8125 of 2017 - M ======================== Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are concerned with Ext.P9 order, which is a communication addressed by the Agricultural Officer to the 1[st] petitioner, wherein the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has been informed to the petitioners. The petitioners own 3.49 ares (8.64 cents) in R.S No.42/1B of Kottuli village in Kozhikode Taluk. Ext.P1 is the tax receipt. Ext.P2 is the Possession Certificate. Ext.P3 is the property tax receipt for the building, which is already existing in the property. The petitioners applied for construction of a commercial building, in which Ext.P4 rejection order was issued by the Corporation. 2. The Corporation informed the petitioners that unless a conversion of user is obtained from the District WPC.No.8125/2017 : 2 : Collector or the conversion regularised under Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the Paddy Land Act'), there could be no construction of commercial building allowed in the property of the petitioners. Section 3A of the Paddy Land Act has been deleted from the statute. The petitioners, then approached the LLMC with Ext.P7 application, which is declined by Ext.P9. 3. This Court had directed the Convenor of the LLMC to conduct an inspection of the property and file a report. The report has been filed along with memo dated 12.07.2017, which is in tandem with Ext.P9. It is reported that there exists a building in the property. But, however, the LLMC was not able to ascertain as to from which date, the building exists in the property. The boundaries of the properties are also noticed in the report, which are on the South; a three storied building of Apco Hundai show room, the West; a mini by-pass road, on the East; residential houses and on the North a foot path leading to other residences. WPC.No.8125/2017 : 3 : 4. The LLMC, with regard to Ext.P9 and the report filed, had decided not to remove the land from the data bank, in the meeting held on 02.05.2017, for reason of the land existing as wet land in the data bank. 5. The report and the impugned order are very clear, insofar as there is no wet land existing in the area. The decision not to remove the property from the data bank is by reason of the inability to determine the date from which the building is existing in the property. Ext.P5 is the extract of the files of the Municipality, which indicates that the building was assessed to tax atleast from 1993. The Municipality also has not filed any counter affidavit in opposition to the said claim. In the above circumstances, definitely, the land owned by the petitioners was converted long prior to the introduction of the Paddy Land Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners' also places reliance on Circular No.994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD dated 22.12.2016. However, the learned Government Pleader WPC.No.8125/2017 : 4 : pointed out that such permission, on lands, in which there are validly constructed buildings, applies only to residential buildings. The Circular cited above takes into consideration, the existence of a building in the property included as paddy land or wet land and allows construction of residential building. However, when the lands are converted prior to the Paddy Land Act, there cannot be any restriction as to the category of construction to be carried on in the properties, which obviously are converted prior to the Paddy Land Act. The consideration also has to be made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order). 7. On the totality of circumstances as noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that the LLMC has to remove the land from the data bank. There shall be a direction so to do and the Convenor of the LLMC shall issue certificate, deleting the petitioners' property from the data bank, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. WPC.No.8125/2017 : 5 : 8. The petitioners could also apply before the District Collector/RDO for conversion of user of land under Clause(6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, which going by the declaration of this Court, has necessarily to be allowed. The petitioners on such removal being effected, certificate shall be issued on the basis of which, the petitioners shall be permitted to file an application before the RDO/District Collector. Going by the decision in **Revenue** . **Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep - 2015 (1) KLT 984 SC** When the property is converted prior to the implementation of the Paddy Land Act, then, the conversion of user has to be sought for, from the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioners would be entitled to file such an application before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority would consider the application in accordance with the directions in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector - 2015 (3) KLT 182.** After the conversion is WPC.No.8125/2017 : 6 : permitted, the petitioners could also seek change of categorisation before the land tax authorities and seek fresh assessment of the land as 'garden land', as has been declared in **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath V. Mariumma - 2015(2) KLT 516** . The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs. Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN,** SB/02/08/2017 **JUDGE**