Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions: fil...

K.K. Jagadeesan v. R.D.O., Thiruvalla; Agricultural Officer Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee; Village Officer

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31521 of 2015 (M) and connected cases
Neutral Citation::null

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 disposed of by permitting petitioners to file applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees for correction of Data Bank entries. If filed with a copy of the judgment, these applications will be considered after obtaining reports from KSRSEC regarding the property status at the Act’s commencement. Petitioners must pay KSRSEC fees for the report. If the LLMCs allow the corrections, petitioners may invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to seek permission to use the property for other purposes, with the competent authority issuing orders within one month from the LLMC decision. Building permits or numbers, if otherwise due, shall be issued by local authorities once enabled by this process, and related fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act may follow accordingly, guided by the decisions in Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of with directions: file prescribed-form applications before LLMCs for Data Bank corrections; obtain KSRSEC reports; pay fees; if allowed, pursue permissions under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order; building permits/numbers to be issued as applicable; orders to follow within specified time frames.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • K.K.Jagadeesan, Goureekrishna House, Muthoor P.O., Kuttappuzha Village, Thiruvalla Taluk

Respondents

  • The R.D.O, Thiruvalla
  • The Agricultural Officer Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Perungara 689101
  • The Village Officer, Kavumbhagom 689101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T.P. Pradeep
  • • Sri. P.K. Sathees Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Santhosh Peter

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners challenge entries in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, contending that several properties originally paddy lands were converted to garden lands long before the Act and should not be treated as Paddy land. They allege that the Data Bank misclassifies their properties, restricting construction, obtaining building permits, or even numbering buildings. They seek directions to Local Level Monitoring Committees to correct the Data Bank entries and to amend revenue records. Some petitions request permits to use the land for other purposes, or building numbers for constructed structures. The Court notes that if a property was converted prior to the Act, the Act’s provisions would not apply, a proposition to be considered by LLMCs, which can rectify Data Bank mistakes. The judgment emphasizes that corrections must be sought in prescribed forms before LLMCs; reports from KSRSEC are to be obtained to assess the property status at the Act’s commencement; fees must be paid as directed. If allowed, petitioners may pursue permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6) to use land for other purposes, with orders to be issued within a month from the LLMC decision, in light of earlier precedents. The Court cites Jalaja Dileep, Puthan Purakkal Joseph, and Kizhakkambalam G P v. Mariumma as guiding authorities.

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

The petitioners contend that although their properties were converted to garden lands prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the Data Bank continues to classify them as Paddy land, limiting use for construction and delaying permissions. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue record updates; some seek building permits and building numbers, and permission to use the land for other purposes under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, with necessary approvals. They rely on precedents that pre-conversion properties fall outside Act ambit and that LLMCs can rectify Data Bank entries and direct effect on building permissions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that corrections to Data Bank entries must follow prescribed forms and processes before LLMCs, and that the Act’s framework governs Paddy land classification. They contend that LLMCs must assess the status of properties using official reports (KSRSEC) and that decisions must align with the statutory provisions of the Act and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, including Clause 6 where applicable. They emphasize adherence to procedure and timelines and warn against circulars altering official interpretation without due process.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveCited to support the proposition that properties converted prior to the Act may be exempt from the Act’s provisions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited as authority for applying the Kerala Land Utilization Order in the light of court decisions (supra) and interpreting related permissions.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited to support timelines and processes, including time-bound actions under the Act and related 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.K. Jagadeesan v. R.D.O., Thiruvalla; Agricultural Officer Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee; Village Officer 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. 31521 of 2015 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** ## **K.K.JAGADEESAN, GOUREEKRISHNA HOUSE, MUTHOOR P O, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR** **RESPONDENTS :** **1. THE R.D.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689101,** **2. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CONVENER OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUNGARA 689101** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVUMBHAGOM, 689101** ## **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2017 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1655/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 31521 of 2015 (M) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------** **P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO 1707/2010 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THIRUVALLA P2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND MAHASAR SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE IST RESPONDENT RDO P3:TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND P4:TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DTD 15/10/2014 P5:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK REGISTER NOTIFIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31521 of 2015** ## **&** **W.P.(C).Nos.1655, 5183, 5253, 8443, 9480, 9988, 10296, 10593, 10972, 11821, 13009, 13098, 13237, 13523, 15828, 16982, 17689 & 18048 of 2017.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** Dated this the 9[th] day of October, 2017. ## **J U D G M E N T** 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 shown as paddy lands in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the properties for 2 ## **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** 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 as 'Paddy land'. The petitioners, therefore, 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 in this regard are part of the records. In the circumstances, the petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in 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 **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** 3 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 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 ## **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank are not in the prescribed form. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to the properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with a copy of the judgment, 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 5 ## **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** 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. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for pursuant to the 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 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, in case applications have not been preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose 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 and the ## **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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. ## **W.P.(C).No.31521/15 & con.cases.** 7 _**Sd/-**_ **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** _**Kvs/-**_ _**// true copy //**_