High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions to th...

Kumar P.R. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 1369 of 2023
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:27278

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Harisankar V. Menon
Judgment Date
2025-03-28
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of directing the 3rd respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 filed by the petitioner, with reference to the dictum laid down by Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala and W.P.(C) No.8589 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, in any case within twelve weeks from today, and to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions to the District Collector to consider Ext.P11 in light of the cited authorities and to dispose of it within twelve weeks, after hearing the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kumar P.R.
  • Saraswathy P (Addl. P2)
  • Lekha R. Menon (Addl. P3)
  • Lekshmi Ramkumar Menon (Addl. P4)

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Land Revenue Commissioner, Commissionerate of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
  • District Collector, Thrissur, Thrissur District
  • Sub Collector, Thrissur
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Wadakkanchery
  • Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Wadakkanchery

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • D. Anil Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri E.G. Gordon, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) 1369 of 2023) concerns a land dispute in Enkakkad Village, Thrissur, where the petitioner-contends that a parcel of land, though entered in the data bank, was never paddy land as of the 2008 Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act and should be removed. The petitioner alleges inadvertent inclusion in the data bank, with an accompanying note that the land was converted about ten years ago. An application for conversion (Ext.P11) under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) was filed; Ext.P5 and subsequent orders reflect adverse rulings, including a rejection of appeals and revision by the Government (Ext.P9). The Government issued Ext.R4(a) (28.10.2020) acknowledging that some properties had been included in the data bank by error and should be excluded. The petitioner relies on the KSREC report and authorities like the Full Bench decision in Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala (2024 (5) KLT 588) and a Single Judge decision in W.P.(C) No.8589 of 2025 (dated 04.03.2025) to argue that inadvertent data bank inclusions must be corrected without rigid adherence to pre- or post-amendment procedures. The court holds that the original inclusion was an incorrect entry and directs the District Collector to consider Ext.P11 in light of the cited authorities, with opportunity of hearing, and to dispose of it within 12 weeks.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO)Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 14 of Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Utilization Order amendment 2018

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contended that the data bank inclusion of the subject land was an erroneous entry since the land was not paddy land as on the date of the 2008 Act. They relied on extant government orders (notably Ext.R4(a) 28.10.2020) admitting the error and seeking exclusion of such properties from the data bank. They argued that Ext.P11, filed under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order in 2017, seeking permission for utilization of the land for other purposes, should be considered and disposed of under pre-2018 amendment principles, as supported by the KSREC report and the Mukthar Ali ratio (Full Bench) and the 2025 Single Judge decision in W.P.(C) No.8589 of 2025. The insistence is that erroneous inclusion requires correction and that no finality should attach to the erroneous data bank entry without a hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contested the relief on grounds tied to the data bank’s validity and the acts of the authorities under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and KLUO. They highlighted that Ext.P11 is subject to due process, and that corrections must be guided by the established procedure and amendments. They also relied on Ext.P9 and the official government notification Ext.R4(a) to justify the data bank’s existing entries where appropriate, while acknowledging the government’s notification to exclude certain lands from the data bank. The respondents emphasized the need for a careful, legally compliant review by the District Collector in light of the governing statutes and amendments.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala2024 (5) KLT 588PositiveFull Bench authority cited to support correction of erroneous data bank inclusions and to direct amends to the data bank when pointed out.
W.P.(C) No. 8589 of 2025W.P.(C) No. 8589 of 2025PositiveSingle Judge decision cited to align with pre-2018 amendment treatment and to consider Ext.P11 under that framework.

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 Kumar P.R. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:27278 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 1369 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 KUMAR P.R AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHA MENON ( LATE), MARATH HOUSE, ENKAKKAD P.O. WADCKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680589.`** - **`2 ADDL. P2. SARASWATHY P, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O LATE KUMAR P.R., RESIDING AT 21/167, SREEPADMAM, PALACE ROAD, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN 680589.`** - **`3 ADDL. P3. LEKHA R. MENON, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O LATE KUMAR P.R., RESIDING AT 21/167, SREEPADMAM, PALACE ROAD, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN 680589.`** - **`4 ADDL. P4. LEKSHMI RAMKUMAR MENON, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O LATE KUMAR P.R., RESIDING AT 21/167, SREEPADMAM, PALACE ROAD, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN 680589. [ADDL. P2 TO ADDL.P4 ARE (LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER ) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 IN IA 1/25 IN WPC 1369/2023].`** ## **`BY ADV D.ANIL KUMAR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.`** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 2 2025:KER:27278 ``` - **`2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.`** - **`3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680001.`** - **`4 SUB COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680001.`** - **`5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, WADAKKANCHERY, KUMARANELLUR P.O. THRISSUR, PIN – 680590.`** - **`6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, WADAKKANCHERY, KUMARANELLUR P.O. THRISSUR, PIN – 680590.`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SRI E G GORDEN SR GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 3 2025:KER:27278 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is stated to be in ownership and possession of certain extent of land in Survey Nos.215/3, 214/6, 214/5 of Enkakkad Village in Thrissur District. The petitioner contends that the afore property was never a paddy land, as on the date of commencement of the 2008 Act. However, he points out that by an inadvertent error, the property in question, came to be included in the data bank. In such circumstances, the petitioner further points out that with respect to the afore inclusion also, the statement in the data bank was to the effect that, the property was 'converted around ten years back'. The petitioner filed an application for conversion of the afore property before the appropriate authority, which is seen rejected by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner filed a further appeal and a later a revision before the Government and the Government through Ext.P9, though made reference to the report of the Agricultural Officer, which was in favour of the petitioner, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 4 2025:KER:27278 ``` 2. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned senior Government Pleader. 4. This Court notices that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government has issued Ext.R4(a) notification dated 28.10.2020, as per which certain properties have been admitted to have been included in the data bank through an error and hence seeking to exclude them from the data bank. Taking note of the afore, the petitioner has also submitted Ext.P11 application dated 14.01.2017, with reference to the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order before the District Collector, seeking permission for Utilisation of the land for other purposes. The petitioner points out to the findings contained in the report of the KSREC also to contend that even admittedly the property was not a paddy land, as on the date of commencement of the 2008 Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 5 2025:KER:27278 ``` Full Bench of this Court in **Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KLT 588]** as well as the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in **W.P.(C)No.8589 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025** to contend that in cases of the like nature wherein by an inadvertent error, if a property happens to be included in the data bank, even without an appropriate application, once being pointed out, the authority has to make amends to the data bank. He places reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench to contend that insofar as Ext.P11 was one filed during 2017, the same has to be directed to be considered and disposed of as one filed before the 2018 amendment, without requirement to satisfy the fee payable thereunder. 5. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records. 6. True, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, a reference to the Government Order at Ext.R4(a) would show that the property in question has been decided to be taken out of the data bank. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 6 2025:KER:27278 ``` 7. In the light of the afore, I find force the contention raised by the learned counsel that the original inclusion as per Ext.P12 can only be termed as an incorrect entry. In such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner against Ext.P11 requires to be considered and disposed of by the District Collector. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 filed by the petitioner, with specific reference to the dictum laid down by this Court in **Mukthar Ali** (supra) as well as **W.P.(C)No.8589 of 2025** (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twelve weeks from today. Needless to say that the petitioner is also to be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter. ## **Sd/-** **HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE** ANA **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 7 2025:KER:27278 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1369/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3033/2005 DATED 19.08.2005 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY ENKAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 16.06.2016 ``` - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK REGISTER PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED 24.03.2012`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP (C ) NO. 7344/2017 DATED 08.11.2017`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B214265/2018/K.DIS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2018`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2018`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LRA(4)58539/18 DATED 08.11.2019`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 14 OF KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.2021`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2022`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC`** ``` Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.1369 of 2023 8 2025:KER:27278 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE R4(a) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK No.E2- 16387/2022 DATED 28.10.2022 PUBLISHED BY WADAKKANCHERRY MUNCIPALITY ```