Mathew N.D. v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-01-04
Court Decision / Holding: For the said limited purpose, Ext. P9 order is set aside. The Court directs the 3rd respondent to issue separate orders on Exts. P5 and P6 permitting construction of buildings up to 3000 sq ft each in the respective properties; writ petition disposed of.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MATHEW.N.D., AGED 65 YEARS S/O.DEVASSY, NEELANKAVIL (HOUSE), MOORKKANIKAKRA, P.O.KOZHUKKULLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680751

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHURAM, PIN – 695001
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003
TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN – 680020
VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHUKULLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680751

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Lindons C. Davis
• E. U. Dhanya Swathy
• A. P. N. S. Shamila

Counsels for Respondents

• G.P. SMT. Devisree

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mathew N.D., the petitioner, owns several parcels of land in Thrissur District—6.41 ares in Sy. No.49/32 (Ext. P1), 28.23 ares in Block No.68 Sy. No.49/11 (Ext. P2), and 1.42 ares in Kozhukully (Ext. P3). He states these properties were not in the data bank and submitted Form 6 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetlands Rules, 2008 for the Ext. P1 land, and Form 7 for the larger holdings since the combined area exceeded 50 cents. Although Form 6 and Form 7 were filed separately, the 3rd respondent passed Ext. P9 as a consolidated order, and the Tahsildar (LR) revised the BTR to reclassify the lands as ‘converted garden land’. The petitioner contends that, because the lands were acquired by three different sale deeds on different dates, they must be treated as distinct and eligible for separate orders under Form 6 and Form 7; he relies on Marysadan APG Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam (2022) 6 KHC 50, which states that lands bought by different documents should be treated as distinct. Paragraph 7 of that judgment is cited. The learned counsel seeks separate orders for Forms 6 and 7 and, for this limited purpose, Ext. P9 is set aside. The court disposes the writ petition by directing issuance of separate orders for each property permitting construction up to 3000 sq ft, and disposes the writ petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (with S.27A to 27C inserted)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (Form 6, Form 7)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Separate lands purchased by different documents on different dates must be treated as distinct properties; contiguity does not compel aggregation for Form-7 eligibility.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that since lands were acquired by three different sale deeds on different dates, they must be treated as distinct and eligible for separate orders under Forms 6 and 7. He relies on Marysadan APG Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam (2022) 6 KHC 50, to support that two pieces of land bought by different documents cannot be treated as a single unit for Form-7. He seeks separate orders on Exts. P5 and P6 and, for this limited purpose, that Ext. P9 be set aside.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt; the court records show hearing by the Government Pleader and submission by the petitioner’s counsel.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Marysadan APG Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam and Others	2022 (6) KHC 50	Positive	Cited by the petitioner in support of the proposition that lands acquired by different documents on different dates must be treated as distinct, preventing consolidation into a single Form-7 proceeding.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 14TH POUSHA, 1945** # **WP(C) NO. 10111 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MATHEW.N.D., AGED 65 YEARS S/O.DEVASSY, NEELANKAVIL (HOUSE), MOORKKANIKAKRA, P.O.KOZHUKKULLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680751 BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA SWATHY A.P. N.S.SHAMILA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003 - 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003 WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **2** - 4 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN – 680020 - 5 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHUKULLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680751. BY G.P. SMT. DEVISREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of land having an extent of 6.41 Ares in Sy. No.49/32 (old Survey No.440/Pt) as per Ext.P1 sale deed and owns 28.23 Ares of property in Block No.68 Sy. No.49/11 (old survey No.440/Pt) obtained vide Ext.P2 sale deed. He is also the owner of the property having an extent of 1.42 Ares of land in old survey No.440/Pt in Kozhukully Village in Thrissur District obtained as per Ext.P3 settlement deed. 2. The petitioner states that the aforesaid properties are not included in the data bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form-6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetlands Rules, 2008 before the 3[rd] respondent in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Since the **4** WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 properties covered by Exts.P2 and P3 exceed 50 cents of land, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form 7. According to the petitioner, even though Form 6 and Form 7 applications were submitted separately, the 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P9 consolidated order. Pursuant to Ext.P9, the Tahsildar (LR) made necessary corrections in the BTR and the properties of the petitioner were reclassified as ‘converted garden land’. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P9, he can construct a building having area up to 3000 square feet only. However, if the applications in Form 6 and Form 7 were considered separately, he will be eligible for construction of building with 3000 square feet area each. The petitioner states that since the properties are obtained by different sale deeds, he is entitled to get separate orders in respect WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **5** of Form 6 and Form 7 applications. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of this Court in **Marysadan APG Pvt.Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam and Others (2022** **(6) KHC 50),** in support of his contentions. 4. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as follows:- 7. “Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the lands by two different documents on different dates. Therefore, these two pieces of lands are to be treated as distinct. The fact that the lands are lying contiguously, cannot be a reason to treat the two pieces of land as one and to insist for a Form-7 application. It is also to be noted that the petitioner had purchased the land prior to 30.12.2017, when S.27A to 27C were inserted in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **6** respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confining his prayer for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to issue separate orders on Exts.P5 and P6 applications. He further submits that he is not pressing for the direction sought against the 3[rd] respondent to refund the amount collected from him towards fees for change of nature of land in Ext.P5 Form 6 application. Since the petitioner has obtained the lands by three different documents on three different dates, he is entitled to get separate orders in respect of the applications preferred by him in Form 6 and Form 7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to issue separate orders on Exts.P5 and P6 applications permitting construction of building upto 3000 Sq.ft each in the respective properties. WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **7** For the said limited purpose, Ext.P9 order is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/- WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10111/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit1 - A COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1809/2017 DATED 06.10.2017 OF KUTTANELLUR SRO IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 6.41 ARES. - Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2215/2003/I DATED 22.05.2003 OF KUTTANELLUR SRO OF THE PETITIONER HAVING AN EXTENT OF 28.23 ARES OF LAND. - Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1949/1/2017 DATED 23.10.2017 OF KUTTANELLUR SRO. - Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK WITH RESPECT TO KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE IN THRISSUR DISTRICT PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 21.01.2021 - Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2.8.2021 - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 7 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.08.2021 - Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER FORWARDING THE SKETCH, MAHAZAR AND ENQUIRY REPORT TO THE RDO WITH RESPECT TO FORM 6 APPLICATION WITH NO.D1-12198/2021 DATED 25.08.2021 WP(C) No. 10111 OF 2023 **9** - Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER FORWARDING THE SKETCH, MAHAZAR AND ENQUIRY REPORT TO THE RDO WITH RESPECT TO FORM 7 APPLICATION WITH NO.D1-12199/2021 DATED 25.08.2021 - Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D112198/2021/SPL DATED 13.12.2021 ALONG WITH SKETCH - Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1029396/2021 DATED 08.07.2022 OF THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) - Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY WITH SURVEY NO.49/32 AND 49/36 (OLD SURVEY NO.440/PT) - Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY WITH SURVEY NO.49/11 AND 49/35 (OLD SURVEY NO.440/PT)