High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-12-08The writ petition is allowed in part; Ext.P16 s...

Juby M. Mathew v. The District Collector, Pathanamthitta District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Pathanamthitta; Tahsildar, Thiruvalla

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 32696 of 2014 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhammed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2014-12-08
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P16 set aside; direction to the 1st respondent to grant permission to utilise the land for any other purpose within four weeks.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is allowed in part; Ext.P16 set aside; direction issued to grant permission to utilise the land for other purposes within four weeks.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Juby M. Mathew

Respondents

The District Collector, Pathanamthitta District - 680 645
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pathanamthitta District - 689 645
The Tahsildar, Thiruvalla - 689 101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. R. Venkatesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Mohammed Shafi.M

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed by Juby M. Mathew seeks a judicial directive to revise entries in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Register so that the land at Kuttoor Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, is recorded as “dry land” instead of “paddy land.” The petitioner acquired about 1.32 hectares through three assignments (Nos. 465/2004, 1016/1999 and 8262/2000) of the SRO Thiruvalla. The application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLUO) had been rejected (Ext. P16), though the petitioner contends the land was reclaimed well before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). Counsel for the petitioner relies on the dictum in Jalaja Dileep and argues entitlement to declaration or, at minimum, permission to use the land for purposes other than cultivation. The respondents’ stance rests on statutory procedures, but the court cites Clauses 2(a) and 6 of the KLUO and several precedents (Praveen K.V., Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal, Joseph John) to hold that the Collector may consider such applications even if land is pre-conversion. Ext. P16 is set aside, and the court directs the 1st respondent to grant permission to utilise the land for non-cultivation purposes within four weeks, noting existing structures and non-agricultural use on the property.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLUO) Clause 6Kerala Land Utilisation Order, Clause 2(a) (definition of Collector)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner seeks declaration and correction of land classification from paddy to dry land in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Register, arguing that the land was reclaimed long before Act 28 of 2008 and should be permitted to be used for other purposes; relies on Jalaja Dileep dictum and on KLUO Clause 6.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend to apply statutory processes under KLUO and Act 28 of 2008; rely on the Collector's powers under KLUO; require enquiry under Clause 6; no explicit merits are detailed in the judgment.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another	2014 (1) KLT 161	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the court's approach to effectuate changes in Basic Tax Register in similar circumstances; dictum relied upon.
Praveen K.V. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others	2010 (2) KHC 499	Positive	Held that an application under KLUO should be considered unless it is clearly paddy land or wetland; supports approach that the application can be considered under KLU.
Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham	2012 (4) KLT 511	Positive	Held that Clause 6 permission can be granted for construction for industrial purposes; supportive to petition's aims.
Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2014 (1) KLT 706	Positive	Held that even if land was converted, it is not a bar to consideration under Clause 6 of KLUO.

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 Juby M. Mathew v. The District Collector, Pathanamthitta District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Pathanamthitta; Tahsildar, Thiruvalla 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 32696 of 2014 (J)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** **------------------------** **JUBY M.MATHEW, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.M.M.MATHEW, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 680 645.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 645.** **3. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.** ## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI.M** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 32696 of 2014 (J) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.465/2004 OF SRO THIRUVALLA.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1016/1999 OF SRO THIRUVALLA.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.8262/2000 OF SRO THIRUVALLA.** **EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING ITS PRESENT STATE.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02.07.2006 TOWARDS PROPERTY TAX REMITTED IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING IN THE YEAR 2006.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 21.02.2009.** **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF BUILDING TAX ON 25.07.2012.** **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 24.04.2003.** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF TELEPHONE BILL DATED 05.02.2013.** **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.11.2012. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 09.07.2012.** **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3** **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2013 IN W.P.(C).NO.16893/12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 11.09.2013 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2014 PASSED BY THE COLLECTOR.** **EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR DATED 06.11.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **-----------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** Msd. **P.S.TO JUDGE.** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C).No. 32696 OF 2014** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] day of December, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** This is writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the property owned by the petitioner as 'dry land' instead of 'paddy land'. 2. The petitioner acquired 1.32.89 hectares of land situated at Kuttoor Village in Thiruvalla Taluk as per 3 assignmentdeeds namely, document No.465/2004, . 1016/1999 and 8262/2000 of SRO Thiruvalla 3. The petitioner's application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order has been rejected as per Ext.P16. It seems that the petitioner also requested to reclassification of land only with application under KLU Order. 4. It is seen from Ext.P4 that this property has been W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 2 : converted long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161)** , to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the property has been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008. It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation. 6. The Collector has power under Clause 6 of the Kerala W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 3 : Land Utilisation Order (for short, the 'KLUO') to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under Clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in **Praveen K.v.** **Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499]** held as follows: “If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 4 : the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.” 7. In **Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511]** another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In **Praveen's** case ( _supra_ ) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector. 8. In **Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706]** it was held that even if land was already converted that is no bar in considering the application under clause 6 of KLUO. Therefore, if the properties are not reclaimed by contravening provisions of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of clause 6 of KLUO. W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 5 : 9. In the light of above, Ext.P16 is set aside. Considering the fact that there exists a residential building in the property and also taking note of coconut trees in the property, I am of the view, the permission can be granted to utilise the land for other purpose. Accordingly, Ext.P16 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to utilise the land for any other purpose within a period of four weeks. Sd/- ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge. W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 6 : **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.** dpk W.P.(c).No. 32696 of 2014 : 7 :