Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed with directions to LLMCs...

K. Muraleedharan v. Local Level Monitoring Committee of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 27925 of 2017 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2017-10-09
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petitions are allowed. The Local Level Monitoring Committees are directed to consider the petitioners’ correction applications after obtaining a report from KSRSEC regarding the position of the properties at the time of the Act’s commencement. Petitioners shall pay the KSRSEC fees when directed by the Conveners. If the petitions’ requests under Clause 6 are granted, petitioners shall be issued building permits if they are otherwise entitled, and may move for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act if applicable. The authorities must decide within one month from the date of their respective requests, guided by Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and without being bound by Circular No.46848/P1/2016. All actions should be compliant within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, and the LLMCs’ decisions must be implemented accordingly.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions allowed with directions to LLMCs to process correction applications with KSRSEC reports; build permissions and potential fresh land-use permissions to be granted under Clause 6; orders to be issued within specified timeframes; not to be hindered by Circular No.46848/P1/2016.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • K. Muraleedharan

Respondents

  • Local Level Monitoring Committee of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation represented by Convenor/ Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Attipra, Kulathur P.O., Thiruvananthapuram -695 583
  • Agricultural Field Officer Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, PIN-695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. M. Sreekumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Govt. Pleader Sri. K. J. Manuraj
  • • Sri. P. K. Manojkumar (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, K. Muraleedharan and others, challenge the Kerala Data Bank entries under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which describe their properties as Nilam (paddy land). They had converted their lands to garden land long before the Act’s introduction and allege the Act should not apply to such properties, seeking correction of the Data Bank entries and permission to use the lands for other purposes, including construction. They contend inaction by Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) in considering their correction applications. The court recognises that if the properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act would not apply to them, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep and Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector. It directs LLMCs to re-examine the applications after obtaining a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) regarding the status at the Act’s commencement, with petitioners paying the required KSRSEC fees. If the LLMCs’ recommendations grant permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, authorities must issue building permits if otherwise entitled, and petitioners may seek fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The order emphasizes compliance within three months, and subsequent decisions within one month of the decision, applying the guidance of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6)Kerala Land Tax ActCircular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22-12-2016

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their properties were converted to garden lands prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Since such properties were already converted, the Act should not apply to them, and their entries in the Data Bank as Nilam are erroneous. They seek correction of entries and permission to use lands for other purposes, including construction, after obtaining permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. They request the Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider their applications, with reports from KSRSEC and payment of prescribed fees, within a time-bound framework, and subsequently, if permitted, to pursue fresh permission and, if needed, fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act. They rely on established precedents (Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep; Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector) to support pre-Act non-application of the Act and process for permissions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel emphasize the need to follow the statutory process under the Act and related orders, including maintenance of Data Bank entries and consideration of applications by LLMCs with due procedure. They point to the requirement of LLMCs to obtain requisite reports (KSRSEC) and to the necessity of applying Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for any change in land use, while noting that circulars or government directives may affect timelines and implementation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveCited by the court to support the proposition that pre-Act conversions are not bound by the Act, thus permitting non-application to such properties.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited to support permission-based redress under the Kerala Land Utilization Order Clause 6 and related procedures.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited in connection with the timing and procedural considerations for permissions and orders.

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 K. Muraleedharan v. Local Level Monitoring Committee of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation 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** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 27925 of 2017 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ------------------------** **K. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KESAVAN, T.C 4/1622(2),'MURALYA', 'KESTON' ROAD, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR.** **RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------** **1. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CONVENER/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ATTIPRA, KULATHUR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 583.** **2. AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, PIN-695 001.** **R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MANURAJ. R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 32074 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 27925 of 2017 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2011/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 26-04-1995.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2012/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 22-04-1995.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2296/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 26-04-1995.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2297/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 26-04-1995.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2298/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 22-04-1995.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 438/2002 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 13-03-2002.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.1344049 DATED 06-09-2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.1344050 DATED 06-09-2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DATA BANK OF KOWDIAR VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18-04-2017 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.136/17 DATED 06-06-2017 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOWDIAR.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.KBT 27/2017-18 DATED 07-06-2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. KBA 10/2017 DATED 20-06-2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS) NO.34/2017/REVENUE DATED 30-05-2017.** **....2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 27925 of 2017 (M)** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/08/2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.27925, 32074, 32106** ## **&** ## **32108 of 2017.** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 9[th] day of October, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners own properties which 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'). The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since the properties are described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records as also in the Data Bank prepared under the Act, they are unable to make use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted long prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank as 'Nilam'. The petitioners WPC 27925/17 & con. cases 2 have, therefore, preferred applications for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the Data Bank. Ext.P15 in W.P.(C).No.27925 of 2017 and Ext.P3 in the remaining writ petitions are the applications preferred by the petitioners in this regard. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions concerns the inaction on the part of the the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned in considering the aforesaid applications. 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). 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 WPC 27925/17 & con. cases 3 Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed and the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned are directed to consider the applications preferred by the petitioners, after obtaining report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties of the petitioners at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report as and when directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. 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 entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, if applications have not WPC 27925/17 & con. cases 4 been preferred by the petitioners for the said purposes by now, 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 along with the application under the said Order, wherever applicable, 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 by the local authorities concerned, if they require the same and if they are otherwise entitled to the same. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such WPC 27925/17 & con. cases 5 requests are made by the petitioner, 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