High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-10-24Writ petitions disposed of with directions for ...

John Philipose v. District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Cochin, and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28396 of 2016 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2017-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of. Petitioners directed to file applications in prescribed form before LLMC for correction of Data Bank entries, with copies of the judgment and writ petition; LLMC to obtain KSRSEC reports and decide within three months; if corrections are allowed, petitioners may invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to seek permission to use lands for other purposes and, if granted, building permits or numbers shall be issued by local authorities; petitioners may then pursue fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act for garden land status. The decision of LLMC will be guided by Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) and is to be interpreted in light of Kizhakkambalam, untrammeled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 (Govt.).
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for correction of Data Bank entries and potential relief under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, to be processed by LLMC within three months, with Reports from KSRSEC and possible building permits/numbers upon correction; further steps to be taken under Clause 6 of the KLUO and Kerala Land Tax Act as applicable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

John Philipose

Respondents

The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Cochin - 682 030
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha
The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Puthencruz, represented by its Convener (Agricultural Officer), PIN: 682 308, Ernakulam District
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Puthencruz, Ernakulam, PIN: 682 308
Vadavucodu Puthencruz Grama Panchayath, Puthencruz, represented by its Secretary, PIN: 682 308
The Village Officer, Vadavucodu Puthencruz Grama Panchayath, Puthencruz, PIN: 682 308

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Paul K. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M.V. Anandan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges the Data Bank entries under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for lands that petitioners allege were converted to garden land long before the Act and thus should not be subjected to its restrictions. Petitioners claim that inclusion in the Data Bank limits their ability to develop properties, obtain building permits, or even have buildings numbered. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and corrections in revenue records, along with directions to grant building permits and issue numbers for buildings. Counsel for petitioners argues that pre‑Act conversions fall outside the Act’s purview and that Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) have the power to rectify entries in the Data Bank, with reports from KSRSEC necessary to determine the status at Act commencement. Respondents contend LLMCs can correct entries, but the Act’s applicability must be tested per property, and the process must align with the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO). The court notes that if properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act would not apply, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep, and directs LLMCs to process correction applications in prescribed form, obtain KSRSEC reports, and consider granting relief under Clause 6 of the KLUO. It also references Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam for guiding principles, directing compliance within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend that their lands, converted to garden land before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, were erroneously included in the Data Bank, restricting use and impeding building permits and numbering. They seek correction of Data Bank entries, correction of revenue records, and permission to use lands for other purposes after correction; they also seek building permits or building numbers once corrections are allowed and to move under the Kerala Land Utilization Order Clause 6. They urge LLMC authority to decide these issues with reports from KSRSEC for the status at Act commencement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue LLMC can correct Data Bank entries and that Act applicability depends on the facts; pre-Act conversions are to be considered by LLMC; directions to expedite correction and processing, with reliance on statutory procedures and prior rulings.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited as the principle that pre-Act conversion means the Act does not apply; the present judgment treats this as binding to determine applicability in respect of the petitioners' properties.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited for guiding the process under KLUO and to support untrammelled consideration by authorities, as affirmed by the Court’s reference to the decision.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Mentioned Only	Cited for contextual guidance on similar issues; used in the light of decision-making but not as a controlling proposition in the present order.
WPC No.10105/2016	(Exhibit P4)	Mentioned Only	Referenced as the court’s own prior judgment; used as an exhibit rather than a controlling precedent in the present decision.

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 John Philipose v. District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Cochin, 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/2ND KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 28396 of 2016 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **JOHN PHILIPOSE, S/O. PHILIPOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, ENNASSERIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMUGAL P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, PIN: 682 303.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN -682 030.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PUTHENCRUZ, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER), PIN: 682 308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 308.** **5. VADAVUCODU PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHENCRUZ, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN: 682 308.** **6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAVUCODU PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN: 682 308.** ## **R1 TO R4 & R6 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.V. ANANDAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.5295 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** - rs. **WP(C).No. 28396 of 2016 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** - **EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE DATED 09.07.2015.** - **EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.01.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10105/2016 OF THIS COURT DATED 16.03.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07/10/2016.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.28396 of 2016** ## **and** **W.P.(C) Nos. 5295, 10689,** **12060, 13702, 13705, 18305, 21687, 28209, 29220, 29239, 32870, 33706, 33749, 33819, 33850, 33852, 33853, 33857 & 33879 of 2017** **-----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[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 28396/16 & 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 28396/16 & 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 28396/16 & 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 28396/16 & con. cases -5- Data Bank in relation to their 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 the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to 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 28396/16 & con. cases -6- entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer 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 WPC 28396/16 & con. cases -7- building numbers, as the case may be, if they are 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