High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-21Disposed of; writ petition disposed of with a d...

Jisha Jickson v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P(C).No.8149 of 2017 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional 7th Respondent (RDO) to consider the Exhibit P11 application within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, in accordance with law and the principle in Shivadasan v. RDO and Jalaja Dileep. No costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; writ petition disposed of with a direction to process Exhibit P11 within one month; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jisha Jickson

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The District Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam
The Tahasildar, Changanacherry
The Village Officer, Chenthupuzha
Vazhappally Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary
Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Paddy Land Act represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishibha van, Vazhappally, Changanacherry
Additional 7th Respondent: Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Union Club Road, Puthenangady, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Sanil Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Mohammed Anzar, Senior Government Pleader
• Sri. M.E. Anandan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jisha Jickson is the absolute owner in possession of about 3.84 ares (Re-survey No.178/1-5) and 8.30 ares (Re-survey No.178/4-2) in Chethipuzha village, Kottayam District, purchased from her father. The dispute concerns the land’s status under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act) and its inclusion in the data bank as “converted land.” The petitioner initially sought regularisation of the conversion under Section 3A of the Paddy Land Act, but that provision is no longer in force. The Village Officer’s report, the Basic Tax Register (describing the land as nilam), and an agricultural use description (coconut) created confusion about current land status. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) conducted inspections and, based on KSREC data, concluded that the land had been converted prior to the Act and was garden land; the data bank still recorded it as converted land. The petitioner petitioned for conversion of user under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The court noted Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, holding that lands converted before the Paddy Land Act could be considered for conversion of user and directed the Additional 7th Respondent to process Exhibit P11 within one month. The writ petition is disposed of, with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act)Section 3A of the Paddy Land ActKerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order) Clause 6Section 5(4)(i) of the Paddy Land Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Conversion of user under Clause 6 of the KLU Order is permissible where land is converted prior to the Paddy Land Act, as held in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017) 3 KLT 822; such lands may be permitted to be put to a legitimate use per the Jalaja Dileep decision (SC) 2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land was converted prior to the Paddy Land Act and should be treated as garden land. Regularisation under Section 3A is no longer possible since that provision is repealed; however, the Village Officer’s report and KSREC data support a conversion prior to the Act. The petitioner has filed Exhibit P11 seeking conversion of user under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. The LLMC and KSREC findings indicate the land's long-standing garden use, contradicting its “converted land” data-bank entry. Relying on Shivadasan and Jalaja Dileep, the petitioner argues that conversion of user should be permitted and that the District Collector/RDO should exercise jurisdiction to convert the land use in line with law. The court should ensure due process and direct the authorities to process the application (Exhibit P11) promptly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose regularisation due to the repeal of Section 3A; the Paddy Land Act and the data bank classifications show the land as converted, requiring strict compliance with law. They rely on the deletion of Section 3A and the need to resort to proper procedure for conversion of user under KLU Order Clause 6, with LLMC/ KSREC data indicating pre-Act conversion. They contend that no regularisation can be entertained under the current statute and that the RDO should decide the Exhibit P11 application per law. They argue that the court’s reliance on older precedents should be tempered by statutory changes and that the final order should be limited to directing due process rather than altering land status.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2017 (3) KLT 822	Positive	The court relies on this decision to hold that land converted prior to the Paddy Land Act can be considered for conversion of user under the KLU Order.
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC)	Positive	SC decision cited as supporting that lands converted prior to the Act may be put to any legitimate use.

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 Jisha Jickson v. State of Kerala 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** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/30TH SRAVANA, 1939** ## **W.P(C).No.8149 of 2017 (P)** **-----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):-** ## **---------------** **JISHA JICKSON, AGED 36, D/O PHILIP JOSEPH, PALATHRA HOUSE, NEAR KRISTU JYOTI SCHOOL, KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHETHIPUZGA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686104,** **REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PHILIP JOSEPH, AGED 66, S/O JOSEPH, PALATHRA OUSE, NEAR KRISTU JYOTI SCHOOL, KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHETHIPUZHA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686104.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE.** **RESPONDENT(S):-** ## **---------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.** **3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.** **4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHETHIPUZHA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 104.** **5. VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT KURISUMMOOD, CHANGANACHERRY-686 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **6. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND, AND WET LAND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY-686 104.** **W.P(C).No.8149 of 2017 (P) - 2 -** ## **ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:** **------------------------------------** **ADDL.R7. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM-1.** **ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO.13303 OF 2017 DATED 21.08.2017.** **R1 TO R4, R6 & R7 BY SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.E.ANANDAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P(C).No.8149 of 2017 (P)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 27/2/2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 2/12/2006 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.3663/2006 SRO CHANGANACHERRY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19/6/1995 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2149/1995 SRO CHANGANACHERRY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 6/12/2008 ISSUED TO HER FATHER BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008, ISSUE BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER CHETHIPUZHA DATED 5/3/2016. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6/3/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6/3/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FMB WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2017. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER, 1967 DATED 14.08.2017 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------NIL.** **Vku/-** **[ true copy ]** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8149 of 2017-P -------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 3.84 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.178/1-5 and 8.30 Ares in Re-survey No.178/4-2, lying contiguously in block No.3 of Chethipuzha village, Kottayam District. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid properties from her own father, as per Exhibits P2 and P3. The tax receipt is seen at Exhibit P4 and the ownership certificate at Exhibit P5, both in the name of her father. The draft data bank, prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity “Paddy Land Act”] included the aforesaid land as “converted land”, which is evident from the extract produced at Exhibit P6. 2. Earlier the petitioner had applied under Section 3A of the Paddy Land Act for regularisation of the conversion effected. The said provision is no longer available in the statute and, therefore, no regularisation can be made. However, the Village Officer's report on the basis of the application under Section 3A is relevant, is the WP(C) No.8149 of 2017 - 2 - submission of the petitioner. The report is produced at Exhibit P7. The documents produced along with Exhibit P7 includes the extract of the Basic Tax Register, which indicates the property to be “nilam”. The particulars as to the current use of the reclaimed paddy land is shown as “agricultural purpose (coconut)”. The Village Officer has recommended regularisation of the reclamation. Before the regularisation could be made, the provision itself was deleted from the statute and, hence, the amounts as fixed in Exhibit P7 report was not accepted by the authorities. Exhibit P7 report also includes the location plan, which is on physical inspection of the property. It is stated that the property has been converted and is existing with standing coconut trees. The petitioner's difficulty is insofar as the description of the property in the Basic Tax Register [for brevity “BTR”], being “nilam”, as evident from Exhibit P7. The petitioner has now filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer [for brevity “RDO”] for conversion of user, as evidenced from Exhibit P11. The RDO has also been impleaded as the additional 7[th] respondent. 3. This Court had directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity “LLMC”] to file a report after conducting an WP(C) No.8149 of 2017 - 3 - inspection of the property and also after obtaining a Report on Land Use Change from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center [KSREC]. The reports have been placed on record by way of a memo dated 20.07.2017. 4. The LLMC has inspected the property on 06.07.2017 along with the Village Officer, who identified the property. The apparent appearance of the property is said to be a dry land with coconut trees, aged between 8 to 10 years. The boundaries are indicated as - east mud road, south - land of Philip Joseph, west - land of Prabhakaran Pillai and north - nattu thodu. In the data bank, the land is reported to be included as “converted land”. The LLMC itself, on physical inspection and also based on the report of the KSREC, has concluded that the land is a garden land even prior to the introduction of the Paddy Land Act. 5. The KSREC report indicates that the land in survey No.178/4 was under paddy cultivation in 1967; but was observed as fallow land from the data acquired of 23.12.2004 (figure 4). The said land use pattern was followed unchanged over the years 2004 to 2017 as per the satellite figures obtained [figures 5 to 7). The property WP(C) No.8149 of 2017 - 4 - in survey No.178/1 shows almost similar characteristics; but shows buildings/structures towards the north-eastern corner in the data obtained in 2013 (figure 6) and in 2017 (figure 7). The land use pattern has been consistent insofar as it being fallow from 2004 to 2011 and then buildings/structures being erected from 2013 to 2017. 6. The decision of the LLMC, based on the physical inspection and the report of the KSREC, is also placed on record. The decision of the LLMC, reports of the Agricultural Officer and the KSREC, shows the land to be converted prior to the introduction of the Paddy Land Act. In the data bank the property has been described as “converted land”. Section 5(4)(i) of the Paddy Land Act required only cultivable lands to be included in the data bank. If lands are included as converted lands, this Court has in _**Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ **[2017 (3) KLT 822]** held that the land owner would be entitled to apply for conversion of user under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [for brevity “KLU Order”]. Going by the declaration, the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer has to necessarily permit conversion of user, as has been held in the aforesaid judgment, which was based on a decision of the WP(C) No.8149 of 2017 ## - 5 - Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep**_ **[2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC)]** which allowed such lands to be put to any legitimate use. 7. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the additional 7[th] respondent to consider Exhibit P11 application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment in _**Shivadasan,**_ a copy of which shall also be produced before the authority, by the petitioner. The writ petition would stand disposed of as above. No costs. vku/- **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. [true copy ]