Hussain Bava and Parayangadan Haseena v The District Collector, Malappuram; The Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna; The Tahsildar (Land Records), Perinthalmanna; The Village Officer, Perinthalmanna

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 28354 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - 1 HUSSAIN BAVA AGED 38 YEARS - S/O. KASIM HAJI, PUNNACHEERY HOUSE, KARAPARAMBU, PULPATTA P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676 123. - 2 PARAYANGADAN HASEENA AGED 37 YEARS - W/O. HUSSAIN BAVA, PUNNACHEERY HOUSE, KARAPARAMBU, PULPATTA P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676 123. BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD K. ABDUL MAJEED.N A.GRANCY JOSE ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. - 2 THE SUB COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322, MALAPPURAM. - 3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322, MALAPPURAM. - 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322, MALAPPURAM. SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ## W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 6 th day of January, 2022 .** The petitioners, who claim to be the absolute owners of 26.92 Ares of land on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds – comprised of in Sy.No.114/1A of the Perinthalmanna Village, have approached this Court asserting that the land in question had been converted as early as in the year 1981 by their predecessors-ininterest on the strength of Ext.P3 sanction obtained by them under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (the KLU order, for short). 2. The petitioners say that, however, in spite of 3 W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 this, when they applied through Ext.P8 to the 3[rd] respondent – Tahsildar (Land Records), for reassessment of the land based on Ext.P3, it has not been accepted and has been refused to be acted upon, saying that they must first obtain an order under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Paddy Land Act” for short). 3. The petitioners assert that insistence of the Tahsildar in the afore manner is illegal and contrary to the declarations of law by this Court in **Tahsildar, Todupuzha and Another v Renjith George** (2020 (1) KHC 865). 4. I have heard Sri.Abdul Jawad.K – learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 4 W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 official respondents. 5. Smt.Mable C.Kurian submitted that this writ petition has been filed in a speculative manner because, concededly, Ext.P8 has not been yet decided in any manner by the Tahsildar. She submitted that, if the petitioners so require, the Tahsildar will consider Ext.P8 and issue an appropriate order thereon without any further delay. 6. in reply, Sri.Abdul Jawad.K submitted that his clients have been constrained to approach this Court because, even though Ext.P8 was preferred on 25.11.2021, it was not accepted and refused to be acted upon by the Tahsildar for the reasons already stated above. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the Tahsildar be directed to allow Ext.P8 and reassess the property in terms of the declarations by this Court in 5 ## W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 ## . **Renjith George (Supra)** 7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that, as on date, Ext.P8 remains without being considered by the Tahsildar. Whether said Authority will deal with it in a particular manner or otherwise, is beyond the purview of this Court at this stage, but I am certain that said Authority must do so without any further delay. 8. Since the petitioners say that the property was converted as early as in the year 1981 on the strength of Ext.P3 obtained by their predecessor-in-interest and that a cinema theatre has already been constructed thereon several decades ago, I am certain that the Tahsildar must keep this in mind also while deciding Ext.P8, as also the declarations of this Court in **Renjith George (Supra)** . Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 6 W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 3[rd] respondent – Tahsildar to take up Ext.P8 applications of the petitioners and dispose of the same, after affording them an opportunity of being heard and adverting to Ext.P3, as also to the law declared by this Court in **Renjith George (Supra)** ; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible; but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** Raj/06.01.2022. 7 ## W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28354/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4154/1/21 DATED 29.10.2021 OF PERINTHALMANNA SUB REGISTRY. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.42444/1/21 DATED 03.11.2021 OF PERINTHALMANNA SUB REGISTRY.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.1981 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE KLU ORDER.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAID BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 20022003 DATED 09.09.2002.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX DATED 03.04.1999 PAID BY THE PREDECESSORS OF THE PETITIONERS.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.04.2001 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.12.2004 SHOWING PAYMENT OF TRADE LICENSE FEES.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE` 8 ## W.P.(C)No. 28354 of 2021 ``` PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P8 APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2021. ```