High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-06-08Writ petition disposed with directions: LLMC an...

M/S. Kairali Granites v. Maradu Municipality & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2762 of 2017 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-06-08
Court Decision / Holding: Petition disposed with directions. The Court directed that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) file a report after inspection, and that, based on KSREC findings, the petitioner may pursue conversion under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) to obtain garden-land status. After conversion, the petitioner may seek regularisation under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Crucially, the court held that the regularisation application should be considered by the local authority within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions: LLMC and authorities to consider regularisation once conversion is established; regularisation to be considered under KMBR 1999 within one month of certified copy of judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S.Kairali Granites

Respondents

Maradu Municipality
The Secretary, Maradu Municipality
The Village Officer, Maradu
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
Addl.R5 Local Level Monitoring Committee

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Srikumar (Senior Advocate)
• Sri. K. Manoj Chandran
• Sri. P.R. Ajithkumar
• Sri. P. V. Thomas Kumaran
• Anagha Lakshmy Raman
• Sri. S. A. Mansoor (Pattanam)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T. R. Rajan
• Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M/S Kairali Granites, challenges stop memos Exhibits P8 and P9 issued by the Village Officer and the Secretary of Maradu Municipality in connection with an unauthorised construction on a plot adjacent to the National Highway. The petitioner had applied for regularisation under Exhibit P1 for temporary sheds used to stock granite and building materials; the site plan is at Exhibit P3, and the parking area is shown as converted land in the data bank (Exhibit P5). Exhibits P4 and P5A indicate long-standing conversion and garden land value. The case turned on whether the land could be regularised under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, given conflicting entries in revenue records where the Basic Tax Register and Tandaper Register describe the land as Nilam, while the data bank marks it as converted. To resolve this, the court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to inspect and, with KSREC, prepare reports. The LLMC concluded that the data bank entry of converted land is correct; KSREC’s satellite analysis showed the plot had remained fallow/open land with some constructions in 2006 and no significant land-use change thereafter, and concluded conversion existed prior to 2008 Paddy Land Act. The court observed that even before the Paddy Land Act, the land was converted and noted Jalaja Dileep v. RDO, Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma as authority for conversion and reclassification. Consequently, the petitioner may pursue a conversion under KLU Order Clause 6 and then seek garden-land reclassification for tax purposes; however, proceedings must not delay regularisation, and the local authority must consider the application under KMBR 1999 within one month of certified copy of judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Paddy Land Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order)Clause 6 of KLU OrderKerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that after inspecting the site for regularisation of unauthorised construction, the parking area shown as converted land in the data bank and the records supporting pre-existing conversion justify regularisation under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. They rely on the site plan, data bank extracts, and prior certificates to argue that the land was converted before 2008 and should be treated as garden land for taxation and planning purposes, allowing regularisation without undue delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that revenue records describe the land as Nilam; stop memos were issued on regulatory grounds, and the data bank entries require verification. They argue that final regularisation depends on formal conversion under KLU Order Clause 6 and classification changes after re-assessment, and emphasise that BTR inconsistencies must be resolved by the competent authorities. They request adherence to due process under KLU Order and relevant rules.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that conversion under KLU Order can be needed/precedent for regularisation.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited for authority on conversion and regularisation following pre-Act conversion.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma	2015 (2) KLT 516	Positive	Division Bench ruling cited regarding reclassification to garden land after conversion.

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/S. Kairali Granites v. Maradu Municipality & 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 THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/18TH JYAISHTA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 2762 of 2017 (U) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER : ----------------------** **M/S.KAIRALI GRANITES, N.H.BYE PASS, VYTILLA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.V.R. NARAYANAN EMBRAN.** **BY SRI.K.SRIKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.V.THOMAS KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN SRI.S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM)** **RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------** **1. MARADU MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARADU P.O, KOCHI -682 304.** **2. THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MARADU P.O, ERNAKULAM -682 304.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU, ERNAKULAM -682 304.** **4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI 682 001.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 2762 of 2017 (U)** ## ***ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED** ## ***ADDL.R5: LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE** **CONSTITUTED UNDER KERALA CONVERSION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, BEHIND MARADU VILLAGE OFFICER, INTUC JUNCTION, NETTOOR, MARADU-682 304** ***ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7/2/2017 IN IA.NO.1808/2017.** **R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.R.RAJAN R3 TO ADDL.R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 2762 of 2017 (U)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2015 EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR REGULARIZATION EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 IN IA NO.10544/2016 IN WP NO.24736/2012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.11.2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK REGISTER EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND IN RE-SURVEY NOS. 126/7, 126/8, 127/9** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 994733/R.A. 1/2016/LSGD DATED 22.12.2016 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2016 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.18/2016 DATED 28.12.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E-2/12774/16 DATED 30.12.2016 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.1.2016** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2762 of 2017-U --------------------------------------Dated this the 08th day of June, 2017. ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibits P8 and P9 stop memos issued by the Village Officer and the Secretary of the Municipality. 2. The petitioner is carrying on a business in a property near the National Highway. The petitioner applied for regularisation of an unauthorised construction, by Exhibit P1. It is submitted that there were certain temporary sheds erected in the property to stock granite and other building stones dealt with by the petitioner. The location plan is produced at Exhibit P3. Separate building area and parking area are specified in the location sketch. It is submitted that the parking area was described as converted land in the data bank, an extract of which is produced at Exhibit P5. Exhibit P4 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer, which states that the land is converted long back. Exhibit P5A, an extract of the fair-value registers, from the website of the Department of Registration, also WP(C) No.2762 of 2017 - 2 - indicates the specific land to be one converted, for which fair-value has been fixed deeming it to be a garden land. 3. The petitioner's contention is that when site inspection was conducted, it was directed that the parking area should be levelled. When such activity was taken up, Exhibits P8 and P9 prohibitory orders were issued. The allegation in Exhibits P8 and P9 are with respect to filling up of lands and conversion of the same from paddy field. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Basic Tax Register [BTR] and the other Revenue records indicates the land to be 'Nilam' and in such circumstances proceedings were initiated by the Village Officer. 5. Considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, this Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity “LLMC”] to file a report after conducting an inspection of the property and also after obtaining a Report on Land Use from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center [KSREC]. The reports have been placed on record by way of a memo dated 12.05.2017. WP(C) No.2762 of 2017 - 3 - 6. The site inspection report of the Agricultural Officer indicates that the property comprised in Survey Nos.126/7, 126/8,9, 127/9 of Block 13 of Maradu Village, has an extent of 45.86 Ares, with existing 11 coconut palms of over 10 years age and scattered trees. The eastern, northern and southern boundaries of the plot are reported to be houses and the western boundary is bounded by godown of the petitioner itself. Though the property is described as “Nilam,” in the BTR and the Tandaper Register, in the data bank finalised it was noted as converted land. 7. The report on land-use change, as produced along with the memo, shows photographs of the cadastral maps pertaining to the survey plot. On an analysis of the satellite pictures, the Scientist, KSREC reports that the image of 11/12/2006 (Figure 4) shows that the survey plot was converted fallow land with two structures in the north east and south east corners of the plot and that the data of 21.12.2009 (Figure 5), 11/02/2013 (Figure 6) and 06.10.2016 (Figure 7) also shows the nature of the land to be unchanged. The observation and conclusion of the KSREC is that the survey plot is lying as - 4 - WP(C) No.2762 of 2017 fallow/open land with constructions in 2006 data and no significant change in land use practice was observed. The minutes of the LLMC is also placed on record and also the extract of the data bank, which indicates that the land was converted prior to 2008. 8. On the basis of the site inspection and the report of the KSREC, the conclusion of the Agricultural Officer is as under: “The LLMC conducted physical inspection of the land and also took into consideration the satellite images and report received from the KSREC and concluded that the data bank entry of converted land is correct and entrusted the convenor to report the finding to the Honourable High Court”. It is very evident that even prior to introduction of the Paddy Land Act, 2008 the property was converted. 9. For the above reasoning and also the compelling consideration of the land of the petitioner having been shown as converted even in the notified data bank, the petitioner could approach the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [for brevity “KLU Order”] to obtain conversion of user, which has to be granted as has been held in _**Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ WP(C) No.2762 of 2017 - 5 - **[2012 (3) KLT 333]** and _**Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector**_ **[2015 (3) KLT 182]** . After obtaining such conversion, the petitioner could also approach the land tax authorities for fresh assessment of the land as garden land, upon which the categorisation would also be changed in the BTR as garden land, going by the Division Bench decision in _**Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath V. Mariumma**_ **[2015 (2) KLT 516]** . 10. However, these proceedings need not detain the local authority from considering the regularisation application. The petitioner's property having been declared as a converted land, the local authority shall consider the regularisation application under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]