High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-14Writ petition disposed of; No costs.

Itty Ligy Baby v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District; District Collector, Ernakulam; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kalamassery, Ernakulam District; District Level Authorized Committee, Ernakulam District; Kerala State Remote Sensing Agency and Environment Centre (KSRSEC); State of Kerala; Village Officer, Thrikkakkara North Village, Ernakulam District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 13926 of 2017 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The petitioner is entitled to file an application before the LLMC for deletion of Sy.No.722/8 from the data bank; upon deletion, a certificate shall be issued. The petitioner would be entitled to approach the District Collector/RDO under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for conversion of user. After such conversion, the land can be recategorised as garden land for tax purposes, as allowed by law. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Itty Ligy Baby, W/o. Gigi M. Mathew

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District
District Collector, Ernakulam
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kalamassery, Ernakulam District
District Level Authorized Committee, Ernakulam District
Kerala State Remote Sensing Agency and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), represented by its Director
State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department
Village Officer, Thrikkakkara North Village, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Special Government Pleader Mohammed Anzar K.J.
• Senior Government Pleader M. V. Anandan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition by Itty Ligy Baby challenges the classification and data bank status of several survey lands in Thrikkakkara North Village, Ernakulam, contending that the land is garden land or fallow and not cultivable paddy land for over 25 years. The petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) seeking deletion of the land from the data bank and an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for conversion of user to facilitate construction of a commercial building. Interim orders directed the LLMC to file a report, and the LLMC, after inspection, reported that the property largely lies as converted land, with adjacent commercial structures on two sides and fallow land on others; KSREC indicated mixed plantation and intermittent fallow since 2008, with road networks emerging in certain plots. The Paddy Land Act, 2008 requires cultivable paddy land to be included in the data bank, and the court noted that some lands were misclassified as wet land. The court held that deletion could be effected for Sy.No.722/8, while other parcels, converted before 2008, would not be removed from the data bank. The petitioner was advised to pursue conversion of user under Clause 6 and, after such conversion, to seek re-categorisation for garden land. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, directing limited deletion and guidance on conversion under established jurisprudence (Jalaja Dileep; Purakkal Joseph; Kizhakkambalam).

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) – Clause 6Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act) – Section 5(4)(i)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that substantial portions of the land have been converted to non-paddy uses or are fallow and not cultivable paddy land; the land’s inclusion in the data bank as wet land is improper. She seeks deletion of the land from the data bank (Sy. No. 722/8) and permission for conversion of user to permit construction of a commercial building. Exts. P4 and P5 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, were filed; LLMC and KSREC reports indicate converted land and mixed plantation with limited cultivation, and KSREC notes development encroachment in parts. The petitioner relies on statutory provisions and relevant precedents to secure deletion and subsequent conversion; urges that data bank status be corrected and that she be allowed to pursue conversion of user under Clause 6 followed by re-categorisation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that several parcels were converted prior to the Paddy Land Act and thus should remain in the data bank; LLMC and KSREC reports show converted land or mixed plantation with fallow periods, and some parcels have road networks or development; deletion of all lands from the data bank is not warranted; any conversion of user must proceed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, with subsequent re-categorisation after due process and in accordance with established case law.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015 (1) KLT 984 SC	Positive	Cited as authority that when a property is converted prior to the Paddy Land Act, conversion of user must be sought from the District Collector/RDO under Clause 6 of the KLU Order.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Used to indicate that the appropriate authority should consider the application in accordance with directions in that precedent.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Supportive of the proposition that after conversion, categorisation can be revised and taxes re-assessed in line with judgments.

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 Itty Ligy Baby v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District; District Collector, Ernakulam; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kalamassery, Ernakulam District; District Level Authorized Committee, Ernakulam District; Kerala State Remote Sensing Agency and Environment Centre (KSRSEC); State of Kerala; Village Officer, Thrikkakkara North Village, Ernakulam District 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** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/23RD SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 13926 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **ITTY LIGY BABY, W/O.GIGI M.MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKKADAKKATTU HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY KARA, ATHANI PO, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, GIGI M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKKADAKKATTU HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY KARA, ATHANI PO, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** **RESPONDENTS:** **--------------** |**1.**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**|| |---|---|---| ||**FORT KOCHI,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682001.**|| |**2.**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030.**|| |**3.**|**THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,**|| ||**KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**|| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,**|| ||**AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALAMASSERY,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585.**|| |**4.**|**THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**|| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,**|| ||**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO),**|| ||**FORT KOCHI,**|| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 001.**|| |||**--2--**| **--2--** - **WP(C).No. 13926 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------** **5. KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSRSEC) VIKAS BHAVAN, C BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 033, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR.** **6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585.** - **R1 TO R4, R6 & R7 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J.** - **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.ANANDAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 13926 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5-4-2017 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF THE SAID PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14-8-2012 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT DATA BANK IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15-3-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER, 1967.** **EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-3-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== W.P.(C) No.13926 of 2017 - M =========================== Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2017** ## **Judgment** The petitioner is concerned with a total extent of 46.31 ares, of which; 11.73 ares is comprised in R.S.No.722/7, 6.15 ares in R.S.No.722/8, 4.74 ares in R.S No.722/11, 12.13 ares in R.S No.722/12, 0.57 ares in R.S No.722/13, 4.40 ares in R.S.No.722/18 and 6.59 ares in R.S No.722/22 of Block No.5 of Thrikkakkara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The property is lying as a garden land and there is no cultivation of paddy for the last 25 years, is the specific contention taken. 2. The petitioner had approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) with an application for removing the land from the data bank and also an application under Clause(6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity 'the KLU Order') before the Revenue Divisional Officer, respectively by Exts.P5 and P4. Both the applications were not W.P.(C)No.13926/2017 2 received by the appropriate authority, is the contention taken. The petitioner seeks for consideration of the applications and removal of the property from the data bank as also the permission for conversion of user, to construct a commercial building. 3. This Court by an interim order dated 12.04.2017 directed the LLMC to file a report on the lie and nature of the property along with the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center (KSREC). The reports are submitted along with memo dated 15.07.2017. The LLMC had conducted an inspection of the property in the presence of the Village Officer on 24.06.2017, who identified the property. The land is said to be lying as converted land and on its two sides exists a commercial building of Hyndai and the other two sides are bounded by fallow lands. In the data bank except the property in Sy.No.722/8, which is shown as wet land; all other properties are included as converted land. In the revenue records also the property comprised in Sy.Nos.722/7, 722/8 and 722/18 W.P.(C)No.13926/2017 3 are lying as nilam. While the property in Sy.Nos., 722/11, 722/12 and 722/13 are lying as purayidom. The LLMC has found that the entire property lies as converted land and that there is no cultivation possible in the said land. 4. The KSREC report indicates that the properties in Sy.Nos.722/7, 722/11 and 722/12 were under mixed plantation and intermittently lying as fallow from 24.01.2008 onwards. The said trend continued up to 2017, when buildings and structures are found erected in the said land. With respect to the property in Sy.Nos.722/12 and 722/13, they were also under mixed plantation intermittently seen as fallow land on 24.01.2008. The trend continued till 2013 when there was a road network seen in that property. Though the said lands were under paddy cultivation in the year 1967, the same is said to be converted to mixed plantation in 2008 with certain changes indicated from agricultural practices in the year 2017. 5. It is to be emphasised that Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for W.P.(C)No.13926/2017 4 brevity 'the Paddy Land Act') mandates inclusion of cultivable paddy land in the data bank. The Land-Use-Change as noticed by the KSREC is only from agricultural practices. Even in the year 2008 before the Paddy Land Act came into force, the report shows that the property was under mixed plantation cover and intermittently left as fallow. Hence the inclusion of the land in the data bank as wet land is not proper. The petitioner would be entitled to file an application in the form prescribed for deleting the land lying in Sy.No.722/8 from the data bank before the LLMC. On such deletion being effected, the petitioner shall also be issued with a certificate of such deletion effected. 6. With respect to the other properties even the LLMC notices that it is included as converted land prior to 2008. Hence there is no question of any removal from the data bank. The petitioner would be entitled to approach the District Collector/RDO under Clause (6) of the KLU Order for conversion of user. **Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep - 2015 (1) KLT 984 SC** , found that when the property is converted prior to W.P.(C)No.13926/2017 5 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 petitioner 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 permitted, the petitioner 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 disposed of. No costs. Sd/- **K . VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/14/08/2017