High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-08Writ petitions disposed of with directions as s...

M.J. SANTHOSH v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Kalady Grama Panchayath; The Secretary, Kalady Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33270 of 2017 (G)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2017-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions: LLMCs to consider and pass orders for correction of Data Bank entries after obtaining reports from KSRSEC about the property position at Act commencement; petitioners to pay KSRSEC reporting fees if directed. Where interim reports were sought, orders shall be based on those reports. The period for compliance is three months from the date of decision. If Clause 6 relief is granted, the competent authority shall issue building permits or assign building numbers, as applicable, and permit fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act as the case may require, with due regard to the decisions in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, within one month from the date of the petition’s respective request.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.J. SANTHOSH

Respondents

The District Collector, Ernakulam
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
Kalady Grama Panchayath, Kalady
The Secretary, Kalady Grama Panchayath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.A.T.ANILKUMAR
• SMT.V.SHYLAJA
• SMT.K.U.HASEENA
• SRI.KRISHOB K.NAIR
• SRI.JOSE PAUL THOTTAM
• SRI.SYAMON.K.K

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN
• SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN, S.C

Case Synopsis & Summary

The batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank created under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, asserting that several petitioners’ lands were converted from paddy to garden land well before the Act’s enactment and thus should not be governed by the Data Bank entries. The petitions contend that those entries restrict the use of properties, impede construction, and stall issuance of building permits and numbers. The petitioners seek correction of Data Bank entries, correction of revenue records, and directions to local authorities to grant pending building permits, or to assign building numbers where applicable. The Court observes that if lands were converted prior to the Act, the Act may not apply to them, a proposition affirmed by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep. However, considering the controversy is for Local Level Monitoring Committees to determine, the LLMCs are empowered to correct mistakes in the Data Bank after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) about the properties’ status at the Act’s commencement. The judgment directs that reports be obtained, and orders passed within three months. If relief under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order is granted, petitions will be allowed to obtain permits, reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, and issuance of building permits or numbers as applicable, in the light of related judicial decisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the lands in question were converted into garden lands prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and therefore should not be trapped within the Act’s Data Bank framework which restricts use and development. They have filed applications before Local Level Monitoring Committees for correction of Data Bank entries and seek permission to use the lands for other purposes, including construction, after obtaining necessary authorizations. They request issuance of building permits or assignment of building numbers where permitted. They assert that pre-conversion should allow recourse under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, along with potential fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act if such permission is granted. They rely on related precedents to support their interpretation and seek prompt resolution, arguing that the Data Bank’s overbreadth hurts legitimate pre-conversion lands.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Data Bank entries arise under the Act and LLMCs must review corrections objectively, with reports from KSRSEC to reflect the status of properties at the Act’s commencement. They acknowledge that if lands were converted before the Act, the Act may not apply, but contend that individual entries must be examined. The respondents emphasize that if Clause 6 relief is granted, building permits or numbers should be issued, subject to applicable legal processes, including reconsideration under the Kerala Land Tax Act. They rely on the statutory framework and procedural safeguards, and request that decisions be made in accordance with law and the court’s guidance, ensuring that any interim reports are properly utilized.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	The court cites this Apex Court decision to affirm that properties converted prior to the enactment are not governed by the Act, forming the basis for the petitioners’ argument.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	The decision is cited as guiding the invocation of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and related permissions in light of court decisions and government circulars.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited regarding mechanics of fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and related processes under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

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 M.J. SANTHOSH v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Kalady Grama Panchayath; The Secretary, Kalady Grama Panchayath 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 33270 of 2017 (G)** **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------** ## **M.J.SANTHOSH,** **AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. JAYAPALAN, MANIYALIL HOUSE, MATTOOR P.O, KALADY - 683 574.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA SMT.K.U.HASEENA SRI.KRISHOB K.NAIR SRI.JOSE PAUL THOTTAM SRI.SYAMON.K.K** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 030.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, PIN- 682 501.** **3. KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY P.O, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574. REP. BY SECRETARY.** **4. THE SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY P.O, ALUVA - 683 574.** - **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN, S.C** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 35695 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **------------------------------------------** ## **WP(C).No. 33270 of 2017 (G)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT 20/11/2015.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PICTURE SHOWING THE STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 39581/16.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 17857/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.33270, 35695, 35783,** **35797 & 35830 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein WPC No.33270 of 2017 & con. cases 2 are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Banks and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others WPC No.33270 of 2017 & con. cases 3 seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer** v. **Jalaja Dileep** (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the WPC No.33270 of 2017 & con. cases 4 competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months WPC No.33270 of 2017 & con. cases 5 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, WPC No.33270 of 2017 & con. cases 6 the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** rsr