High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-06-06Writ petition dismissed

K.S. Thankachan v. District Collector, Alappuzha & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3466 of 2017 (G)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-06-06
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. No Costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S. Thankachan

Respondents

The District Collector, Alappuzha
The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector & Chairman of the District Level Authorized Committee, Alappuzha
The Village Officer, Edathua Village, Ramankary P.O., Alappuzha 689 595
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Ramankary, Alappuzha & Convener of Local Level Monitoring Committee of Edathua Village, Office of the Agricultural Officer, Edathua - 689 573, Alappuuzha District
The Principal Agricultural Officer, Principal Agricultural Office, Alappuzha - 688 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Sanal Kumar
• Bhavana Velayudhan
• T. J. Seema
• (advocate details as per document)

Counsels for Respondents

• Raji T. Bhaskar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the denial of an exemption under the Kerala Paddy Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act) for constructing a residential house on paddy land. The petitioner, K.S. Thankachan, purchased about 10 cents of paddy land at Ramankary Edathua and sought exemption under Section 9 of the Act. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) refused to recommend exemption, citing that the petitioner's family already possessed a residential house, supported by exhibits P2 and P3. The District Level Authorized Committee (DLAC) then rejected the petition on a similar ground, noting the petitioner’s son had a residence, despite the petitioner’s insistence that the land was bought in 2014 and the objective of the Act is to preserve paddy land by enabling a residence within the cultivable land. The petitioner relied on a decision in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha, to argue a broader interpretation of “Family” under Section 9(8)(ii). The High Court distinguished that decision, clarifying that the term “Family” should not be stretched to include father or grandfather and that the Act’s object is to prevent misuse by small, fragmented claims that could defeat the preservation of paddy land. Concluding that allowing exemption would defeat the Act’s purpose, the Court dismissed the petition with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, Sec. 9(8)(ii)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, Sec. 9(6)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, Sec. 9

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that exemption under the Paddy Land Act is permissible for constructing a residential building on paddy land owned by the applicant. He relies on Exts.P2 and P3 certificates showing no other land in the locality and asserts that LLMC’s rejection was contrary to the Act’s object to provide a residence within the cultivable land. He references the judgment in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer to interpret the scope of “Family” under Section 9(8)(ii) and argues that the DLAC could consider exemption in light of Sub-section 8(ii) and the statutory scheme.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that exemption would undermine the preservation objective of the Paddy Land Act. They argue that both LLMC and DLAC rightly refused the exemption on the grounds that the applicant’s family had residential property elsewhere, and that the Act intends to prevent fragmentation and misuse of paddy land. They emphasize that the statutory provisions require a clear linkage between exemption and building a residence on the owner’s paddy land and that allowing exceptions would defeat the Act’s purpose. They also note the limitations on remedy under the Act via an appeal under Section 9(6).

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others	2015 (5) KHC 103	Distinguished	The court cites this decision to define 'Family' under Section 9(8)(ii) as comprising only the applicant’s wife and children and distinguishes the present case on facts, noting that extending to include father or grandfather would be inappropriate.

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.S. Thankachan v. District Collector, Alappuzha & 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** **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 3466 of 2017 (G) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **K.S.THANKACHAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. SOURIYAR, JUDY NIVAS, MITHRAKARI P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 689 595.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHUA VILLAGE, RAMANKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA 689 595.** **4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA & CONVENER OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF EDATHUA VILLAGE, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDATHUA - 689 573, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **5. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 3466 of 2017 (G)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.52/2004 DATED 06-01-2014 OF AMBALAPUZHA S.R.O.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RAMANKARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18-03-2014.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHUA DATED 25-04-2014.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COLLECTOR, ALAPUZHA DATED 18.11.2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL MONITORING COMMITTEE.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALAPUZHA ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE DATED 11-11-2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** **'C.R.'** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 3466 of 2017 (G) -----------------------------------------Dated: 06[th] June, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's application, before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and the District Level Authorised Committee (DLAC) for exemption for constructing a homestead, was rejected. 2. The petitioner purchased the above land as per Ext.P1 deed. The petitioner then applied for an exemption under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for short). The petitioner relied on the certificates at Exts.P2 and P3, which evidence that the petitioner does not have any land anywhere else in the locality for ## **W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017** **-2-** constructing a residential house. The petitioner's application before the LLMC, however, was not considered favourably. The LLMC, by its minutes at Ext.P5, found that the petitioner's family has a residential house and, hence, refused to recommend the proposal for exemption. The petitioner then approached this Court with a writ petition. In the writ petition a judgment was passed at Ext.P8. 3. The petitioner sought for a direction to the DLAC to consider the recommendation. The DLAC, as per sub section (8) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act, could not have considered the matter without a recommendation for exemption from the LLMC. In fact, the specific condition under which the LLMC refused to recommend exemption to the petitioner, was the fact of his family owning another piece of land. **-3-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017** 4. The petitioner's application was considered by the DLAC and rejected, again, for reason of the petitioner's son having a residence. There is an appeal provided under sub section (6) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act from Ext.P6 order to the District Collector, which was not availed by the petitioner. The petitioner, cites as a reason, the Contempt of Court case filed by the petitioner, in which the order of the DLAC was produced. The Contempt of Court case was closed on 25.01.2017. The petitioner again sought to challenge the same before this Court by the above writ petition, which was filed on 01.02.2017. 5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court, reported in **Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others – 2015 (5) KHC 103** . A reading of the decision indicates that 'Family' as ## **W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017** **-4-** referred under Section 9(8)(ii) of the Paddy Land Act was found to be the family consisting of applicant, his wife and children and it cannot be stretched to an extent to include his father or grandfather. On facts the present case can be distinguished. In the present case, the father claims exemption and the rejection has been on the ground that the family has another property. If each member of the family is excluded according to the person before Court, then, the statutory restriction would be rendered ineffective and otiose. 6. It is also to be noticed that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific words employed in Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act is '... considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of ## **W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017** **-5-** paddy land' (emphasis supplied). The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. Here, about 10 cents of paddy land was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing a residential building, that too, in 2014 after the implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008. It is the said land which was sought to be exempted. 7. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. ## **W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017** **-6-** This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption, especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined the claim and a contrary direction would go against the clear statutory interdict. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 6/6/17