High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-10-09Disposed of with directions to pursue correctio...

M.M. Sherif v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2347 of 2017 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-10-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to file applications before Local Level Monitoring Committees for correction of Data Bank entries, after which LLMCs will report via KSRSEC on the property positions as of the Act’s commencement. If relief under Clause 6 is granted, petitioners will be issued building permits or numbers as applicable, and may seek permission to use lands for other purposes under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, with orders to be passed by the competent authority within one month of LLMC decision. Petitioners may pursue fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act to reclassify as garden lands, to be considered within one month from request, and in line with Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to pursue correction of Data Bank entries and related actions under KLUA and KL Utilization Order; directions for KSRSEC reports; potential issuance of building permits/numbers; follow‑up under KL Tax Act and related authorities within specified timeframes.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.M. Sherif

Respondents

The District Collector, Ernakulam
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
The Village Officer, Keezhmadu, Aluva Taluk
The Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 of Keezhmad u Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. GEORGE SEBASTIAN
• SRI. SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH

Counsels for Respondents

• SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, claiming that certain properties were originally paddy lands converted to garden lands before the Act and should not be subject to its prohibitions. Petitioners allege that being included in the Data Bank prevents them from using the lands for other purposes, including construction, and at times hinders obtaining building permits or numbering constructed buildings. The Court notes that where properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act’s provisions may not apply, a proposition traced to the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep. It directs Local Level Monitoring Committees to decide, in the first instance, whether the claimed pre‑Act conversions exist and to correct Data Bank entries accordingly; it authorizes correction of revenue records if necessary and permits petitioners to file applications in prescribed form for permission to use properties under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The Court also requires KSRSEC to report on the property position as of the Act’s commencement, and contemplates granting building permits or numbers if the petitions are allowed. Interim steps, fees, and reports are to be handled as directed within three months.

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

Petitioners contend that pre‑Act conversions (paddy to garden lands) should fall outside the Act’s constraints, and inclusion in the Data Bank unjustifiably restricts their use, including building activities. They rely on Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep to argue that pre‑Act conversions negate Act applicability and that LLMCs can correct Data Bank errors. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue records, and request to proceed under Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6) with permissions for alternative use, if supported, along with building permits and numbers where applicable. They ask for timely KSRSEC reports and compliance within three months.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents emphasize that LLMCs must determine whether conversions occurred before the Act and that Data Bank corrections depend on factual verification. The Act’s provisions may apply where data requires correction, subject to pre‑Act conversion findings. They seek adherence to statutory procedures, with KSRSEC reports informing decisions. They caution against binding effect of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 and align with Puthan Purakkal Joseph’s decision to guide the process. If Clause 6 relief is granted, petitions may secure permissions for changing land use and subsequent reclassification, subject to orders of the competent authority and timely action by LLMCs and revenue authorities.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited as authority that pre‑Act conversions may fall outside the Act, supporting the petitioners' argument on non‑applicability of the Act to pre‑Act conversions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited to guide the use of Kerala Land Utilization Order and to support decision‑making without being bound by circulars; demonstrates permissible procedure under the Act.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Used to indicate timelines and processes for consideration and potential reclassification under related statutory norms.

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.M. Sherif v. District Collector, Ernakulam and 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 2347 of 2017 (P)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **M.M. SHERIF, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, KAIRALI MALAYAM HOUSE, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SRI.SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 036.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682 001.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KEEZHMADU, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 101.** **4. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008 OF KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KEEZHMADU, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).** **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO. 7497 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 2347 of 2017 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.09.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK OF KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **======================** **W.P.(C.) Nos.2347, 7497, 7706, 8575, 15351, 17251, 17252, 17397, 18243, 18506, 18516, 18517 & 18553 of 2017** **------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of October, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** 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 the properties for other **2** **W.P.(C.) No. 2347/17 & con. cases** purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein 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. The petitioners, therefore, 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 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. **3** **W.P.(C.) No. 2347/17 & con. cases** 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 do 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 competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See _**Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v._ _**Sub Collector**_ (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are **4** **W.P.(C.) No. 2347/17 & con. cases** disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to the properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with a copy of the judgment, the same shall be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, 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 as and when 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 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 from the date of receipt **5** **W.P.(C.) No. 2347/17 & con. cases** 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 for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in case applications have not been preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose by now 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, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise **6** **W.P.(C.) No. 2347/17 & con. cases** 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/- SKS **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**