Mirage Properties v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, ``` ## **`1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 34775 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MIRAGE PROPERTIES 3/643F, 1ST FLOOR, KHADEEJA SQUARE, NADAKKAV P O, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ABDUL BASHEER M.P, S/O. IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS. BY ADVS. RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, MUSIUM ROAD, VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695033.` - `3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673573.` - `4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673573.` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 34775 of 2019 ============================================================= Dated this the 17[th ] day of August, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: _“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and call for the record leading to Exhibits P5 and P7 and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional_ _ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and direct the competent among the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to utilise their 24.2745 ares of land situated in Re Sy No. 1-14-584 of Vengeri Village, Kozhikkode District along with a piece of land having an extent of 1.939 ares in the same survey number to any purpose other than cultivation_ _iii) to grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case.” (sic)_ 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of property having a total extent of 24.2745 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.1-14-584 Vengeri Village, Kozhikode along with a piece of land having an extent of 1.939 Ares in the same survey -3- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 number, which is using as way to the said property of the petitioner. The property of the petitioner has been classified as Nilam in Village records and the basic tax register, even though there is no paddy cultivation in the property for the past several decades, is the contention of the petitioner. The said land is not included in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner, therefore, approached the 3[rd] respondent with an application under Clause 6(1) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967. The request of the petitioner was declined by the 4[th] respondent stating that the property of the petitioner was reclaimed illegally and there is a cannal on the side of the property. This finding was confirmed by Ext.P7 order of the 2[nd] respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. -4- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 3. Heard the Adv.Ranjith Thamban, instructed by Adv.Peer Mohammed Khan for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s property is not included in the data bank. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It will be better to extract Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order here: _“_ _**6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be** –_ _**cultivated with any other food crop**_ ## _xxxxxx (1) xxxxx_ _(2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.”_ -5- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 5. The duty of the authority is to find out that no holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. 6. A perusal of Exts.P5 and P7 will not show that there is any finding by the statutory authorities that the land was cultivated with any food crop for a continuous period of three years after the commencement of the Land Utilisation Order. Moreover, Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the Convener/Agricultural Officer, Local Level Monitoring Committee. It will be better to extract the report here: " ക ോഴിക്കോട് വേങ്ങരി വില്ലേജിൽ മിറാജ് പ്രോപ്പർട്ടീസ് 3/643 എ ഫസ റ്റ ഫ്ളോർ, കദീജ സ്ക്വയർ, നടക്കാവ് പി.ഒ, എന്നിവരുടെ -6- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 ഹരജിയിൽ പറയുന്ന വേങ്ങേരി വില്ലേജിൽ റി സ 2.14.584(സർവ്വെ നമ്പർ 48) ൽ പെ ട്ട 24,274 ആർസ് ഭൂമി ബഹു. ക കേ രള ഹൈ ോടതിയുടെ WP(C) No.12764/2017(U) വിധിന്യായ പ്രകാരം ക ോഴിക്കോട് ക ോർപ്പറേഷൻതല നെ യൽവയൽ തണ്ണീർതട നിരീക്ഷണ സമിതി അംഗങ്ങൾ 09-08-2017 ന് പരിശ ോധിച്ചു. ഹരജിയിൽ പറയുന്ന ഭൂമി കരട് ഡാറ്റാബാങ്കിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്നില്ല. ഇതിൽ ഏകദേശം 15 വർഷം പ്രായമുള്ള 20 തെ ങ്ങുകളുമുണട. ഈ ഭൂമിയുടെ പടിഞ്ഞാറു ഭാഗം രൂപാന്തരം സംഭവിച്ച ഭൂമിയും കിഴക്കും തെ ക്കും ഭാഗങ്ങൾ ക ോർപ്പറേഷൻ ററോഡും വടക്കു ഭാഗം വീടുമാണ്. ഹരജിയിൽ പറയുന്ന ഭൂമി മുഴുവൻ രൂപാന്തരം സംഭവിച്ചതാണ്. KSREC ഡയരക്ടറുടെ റി്പ്പോർട്ടിൽ 1967 മുതൽ തന്നെ ഈ ഭൂമിൽ മരങ്ങളും താമസസ്ഥലവും ആയിരുന്നതായി വിവരിക്കുന്നുണട. 2007 ലെ ഡാറ്റ പ്രകാരവും ടി ഭൂമിയിൽ തതോട്ട കൃഷിയും കെ ട്ടിടങ്ങളും ജനങ്ങൾ താമസിക്കുന്ന പ്രദേശവുമാമായിരുന്നെന വിവരിക്കുന്നുണട. മേൽ പറഞ്ഞ വിവരങ്ങളുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ ഹരജിയിൽ പറയുന്ന ഭൂമിയെ 12-08-2008 ന് മുമപ രൂപാന്തരം സംഭവിച്ച ഭൂമിയായി പരിഗണിക്കാവുന്നതാണെ ന്നും വില്ലേജ് രേഖകളിൽ ഈഭൂമി നിലം ഇനത്തിൽപെ ട്ടതാണെ ന്നും ബഹു. രള കേ രള അഡ്വക്കററ ജനറൽ മുഖേന ബഹു. കേ ഹൈ ക്കോടതിയിൽ റി്പ്പോർടട സമർപ്പിക്കാൻ ബഹു. ക ോഴിക്കോട് ക ോർപ്പറേഷൻ മേയർ ശ്രീ ത തോട്ടത്തിൽ രവീന്ദ്രന്റെ അധ്യക്ഷതയിൽ 11-08-2017 ന് ചേർന്ന ക ോഴിക്കോട് ക ോർപ്പറേഷൻതല നെ ൽവയൽ തണ്ണീർതട നിരീക്ഷണസമിതിയുടെ യ യോഗത്തിൽ ഏകഖണ്ഡമായി തീരുമാനിച്ചതും റി്പ്പോർടട നൽകുവാൻ കൃഷി ഫീൽഡ് ഓഫീസറെ ന ചുമതലപ്പെടുത്തിയതുമാണെ ന വിനീതമായി ബബോധിപ്പിക്കുന്നു.” 7. KSREC Report is also obtained. It will be better to extract the observations and conclusions in Ext.P3 KSREC Report here: -7- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 _“The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2011, 2014 and 2017 for the survey plot it was observed from the toposheet (1967) that the plot was under Plantation and settlements. From the data on 2007 the plot 48 was observed under mixed plantation/vegetation with buildings/settlements in between. The plot also shows a linear road like feature aligned at North West South East direction. The data on 2011 shows more number of buildings/settlements in the plot and the road appears as bright signature. Further in the data of 2014 the number of buildings/settlements had increased significantly on both side of the road. This pattern in landuse practice was observed to be continued in the data on 2017.”_ 8. This Court in **Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2021 (1) KHC 540]** , considered the parameters to treat a land as a paddy land as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the judgment here: _“What are the parameters to treat a land as a paddy land as per the enactment is the sole question to be considered in the writ petition. On going through the_ -8- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 _definition of the paddy land, it is to be assumed that the power of LLMC is to include and exlude the land on being satisfied that the land is suitable or cultivable with paddy. In the modern era, paddy can be cultivated even on the top of concrete structure. Whether it is cultivable or non-cultivable in the context has to be understood with the natural features of the land. If natural features of the land is not fit for such cultivation, certainly such land has to be excluded from the data bank.”_ 9. Similarly in **Mary John v. District Collector, Idukki and Others [2020 (6) KHC 86]** , this Court discussed the consideration of the facts while deciding an application under Clause 6. It will be better to extract the relevant portion here: _“ 3. xxxx xxxx. The only consideration under Clause 6 of the Utilization Order whether the holder of the land should be compelled to cultivate crops which were in cultivation or not. If it is found that such cultivation is not possible, the District Collector has no option but to grant permission under Clause 6 of the Utilisation Order. In view of the fact that there is no compelling reason to direct the holder of the land to cultivate crops, which where in cultivation, I am of the view that there is no scope for reviewing the order_ -9- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 _passed in this matter. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The Grama Panchayat is free to consider the application in accordance with law for the building permit. The Grama Panchayat is directed to consider the application in the light of the order already passed in the matter.”_ 10. In **Beena Johnson v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and Another [2015 (3) KHC 727]** , this Court observed that there cannot be a direction for resumption of land to its original lie and nature nor there can be a direction to cultivate the land, if there is no evidence of cultivation of food crops for three consecutive years in respect of the said land. 11. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court and also in the light of the Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, according to me, Exts.P5 and P7 can be set aside. 12. The Government Pleader takes me through paragraph 7 of the Statement filed on behalf of the 2[nd] -10- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 respondent. Even in that paragraph, the points considered in this judgment is not answered by the respondents. According to me, the matter is to be reconsidered by the 4[th] respondent. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P7 can be set aside and the 4[th] respondent can be directed to reconsider the matter. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Exts.P5 and P7 are set aside. 2. The 4[th] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of the observations in the judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -11- W.P.(C). No. 34775 of 2019 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34775/2019`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.4.2017 IN WP(C) NO.12764/2017. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE IMAGE AND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE VIKAS BHAVAN, C-BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2017 IN WP(C) NO.12764/2017. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C16170/17 DATED 3.4.2018 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2018 IN WP(C) NO.19751/2018. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.552 OF 2006 DATED 6-02-2006 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOZHIKODE. ```