High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-08Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Mini Raju v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 38569 of 2016 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-08
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P5 is set aside. The petitioner shall file a fresh application in the prescribed format within two weeks. The LLMC shall consider the application in light of the amended Paddy Land Rules and issue a certificate of deletion, which shall be produced before the District Collector along with the application under Clause (6) of the KLU Order. After such deletion and conversion of user is obtained, the petitioner may pursue the building-permit application. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mini Raju

Respondents

The District Collector, Pathanamthitta
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor, Pathanamthitta
The Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor (Agricultural Officer), Chenneerkara, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta
The Village Officer, Chenneerkara Village, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Shanavas Khan
• Smt. S. Indu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ravikrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Mini Raju, challenges the decision of the Panchayat which refused to consider a building-permit application on the ground that the land falls within the Paddy Land data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The data bank lists the surveyed land in Chenneerkara Village as paddy land, thereby blocking development. The petitioner sought deletion of the land from the data bank before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC); Ext.P3 shows the LLMC report and Ext.P4 contains a court instructing reconsideration. Although the draft data bank was notified and LLMC declined deletion (Ext.P5), the petitioner proceeded by applying to the District Collector (Ext.P6), a move the petitioner contends is improper since the District Collector lacks power to delete under the then regime. The court recalls that earlier decisions held deletions from a notified data bank were to be considered by this Court under Article 226, but notes amendments via the Paddy Land Rules, 2017, empowering the LLMC to entertain deletion applications within 90 days. The judgment sets aside Ext.P5 and directs the petitioner to file a fresh application in the permitted format within two weeks. The LLMC must decide in light of the amended rules, issue a deletion certificate, and refer the matter to the District Collector under the KLU Order for conversion. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs, allowing development after conversion.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Paddy Land Rules (amended 2017)Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order)Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Section 5(4)(i) of the Paddy Land ActArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land was wrongly included as 'paddy land' in the data bank; its non-cultivable nature and surrounding development indicate deletion is necessary to permit a building permit. The amendments to the Paddy Land Rules (2017) empower the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to entertain deletion applications within 90 days from amendment, after which the data bank can be amended and the applicant may pursue conversion under the KLU Order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the data-bank status and the LLMC’s prior denial of deletion; they rely on the existing statutory framework and the role of the District Collector. The Government Pleader represents the respondents; previously, it was held that deletions required Court intervention under Article 226, though amended rules shift some jurisdiction to LLMC, with proper compliance and conversion procedures under the KLU Order.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015 (1) KLT 984 SC	Positive	Cited as authority that when lands are not included as paddy or wet land in the data bank, the consideration must be under the KLU Order; the decision is used to frame the present case’s approach to deletion and subsequent steps.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited to support the pathway to pursue conversion under the KLU Order after deletion of land from the data bank; reinforces procedural sequence following deletion.

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 Mini Raju v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta & 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 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/17TH SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 38569 of 2016 (U) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **MINI RAJU** **AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.RAJU CHERIAN, IKARAVILAYIL, MATHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU** **RESPONDENTS :** - **-----------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER),CHENNEERKARA, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 38569 of 2016 (U)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **P1: TRUE COPIES OF THE DATA BANK EXTRACTS** **P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 2.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT** **P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT** **P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2016 IN WPC NO.12447/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P5: TRUE COPIES OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.10.2016 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER** - **P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2016** - **P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2016 EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P6** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 38569 of 2016 (U) -----------------------------------------Dated: 08[th] August, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is concerned with 3 Ares 24 square links of property comprised in Survey No.475/7 of Chenneerkara Village. The petitioner's property, as is evident from the extract of the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 'Paddy Land Act'), as produced at Ext.P1, indicates it to be included as a 'paddy land'. The petitioner filed an application for building permit, evidenced at Ext.P2, which, the Secretary of the Panchayat refused to consider on the ground that the property is included in the data bank. 2. The petitioner then approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) for deleting the **-2-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 38569/2016** land from the data bank, as is seen from Ext.P3. Ext.P4 judgment also directed consideration of the request made. However, the draft data bank having been notified, the LLMC declined such request, as per Ext.P5. The petitioner then filed an application before the District Collector, as per Ext.P6, for deletion of the property from the data bank, which the District Collector has no power to decide upon. 3. Earlier, this Court had held that when a data bank is notified, then, necessarily, the removal of lands included in such data bank could be considered only by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not by the LLMC, going by the provisions of the Act and Rules as existing then. However, now the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 ('Paddy Land Rules' for short) have been amended by G.O.(P) No.34/2017/Revenue dated 30.05.2017 and the ## **W.P.(C) No. 38569/2016** **-3-** LLMC has been conferred with power to consider applications for deletion of mistakenly included lands, provided, the application is filed in the format and within 90 days from the amendment. After such deletion, the petitioner could also approach the District Collector/RDO under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, (for brevity 'KLU Order') for conversion of user. 4. This Court in the above writ petition had called for a report from the LLMC. The report of the LLMC indicates that 7 cents comprised in Survey No.475/16 in Chenneerkara Village, lies as an illegally converted wet land. However, the conversion is found to be many years back. The property is bounded on all sides by other landed properties and on the western side by a road. In the adjacent properties also there are rubber trees and residential houses, which makes it ## **W.P.(C) No. 38569/2016** **-4-** very clear that no paddy cultivation is possible in the subject land. The inclusion in the data bank, definitely is by reason of the description in the Basic Tax Register. The LLMC has also concluded that the aforesaid property is a converted wet land. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep - 2015 (1) KLT 984 SC** has held that when properties are not included as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' in the data bank, then the consideration has to be made under the KLU Order. Here, the property is included as a 'paddy land' in the data bank, but, however, the conversion is said to be effected prior to 2008. It is also to be noticed that Section 5(4)(i) of the Paddy Land Act, specifically speaks of inclusion of paddy and wet land which are cultivable on the basis of the map prepared by the Kerala Land Use Board or the Central State ## **W.P.(C) No. 38569/2016** **-5-** Technological Institutes and after verification of the satellite pictures. It is evident that no such verification was done when the land was included in the data bank as 'paddy land', since, admittedly, the land is bounded by other garden lands and a road. Cultivation, according to the LLMC, is impossible insofar as the subject land is concerned. 6. In such circumstance, Ext.P5 is set aside. Based on the amendments brought to the Paddy Land Rules, the petitioner shall file a fresh application in the format within a period of two weeks from today and the LLMC shall consider the same in accordance with the report filed before this Court. On such deletion, the LLMC shall also issue a certificate, which shall be produced before the District Collector, along with the application under Clause (6) of the KLU Order, which shall be considered on the basis of the declaration in ## **W.P.(C) No. 38569/2016** **-6-** **Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector - 2015 (3) KLT 182** . The petitioner would also be entitled to proceed with the building permit application after such conversion of user is obtained. The writ petition would stand disposed of. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 8/8/17