High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-17Disposed of

Muhammed Basheer K. v. Kozhikode Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 17536 of 2017 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2017-11-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of directing Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and pass orders on Data Bank correction applications after obtaining KSRSEC reports; petitioners to pay KSRSEC fees if directed; if Clause 6 requests are granted, petitioners are entitled to building permits or building numbers; they may move for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act; orders to be issued within three months from the LLMC decision.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Basheer K.

Respondents

Kozhikode Corporation
The Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation
Local Level Monitoring Committee
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode
Regional Town Planner, Regional Town Planning Office, Chakkorthkulam, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A.V.M. Salahudin

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.D. Babu
• Govt. Pleader Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges the inclusion of petitioners’ properties in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008, alleging that the lands were converted from paddy to garden land well before the Act’s enactment. The petitioners contend that, although the properties appear in the Data Bank, the pre‑Act conversion exempts them from the Act’s restrictions and should permit them to use the lands for other purposes, including construction, subject to appropriate permissions. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and corresponding revisions in revenue records, as well as building permits and building numbers arising from the corrected status. Some petitions also seek permission to alter land use under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and to obtain fresh assessment as garden lands. The respondents, appearing through the Local Level Monitoring Committees, contend that corrections must be determined at the LLMC level with factual reports (KSRSEC) and in light of controlling precedents, including decisions on pre‑Act status. The court holds that if the pre‑Act conversion claim is correct, the Act would not apply; LLMCs retain authority to correct Data Bank entries, subject to KSRSEC reports and applicable criteria. The judgment directs swift processing—within three months—of Data Bank corrections, and, if permitted under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, grant of building permits or numbers and potential fresh tax assessments, with further orders to follow based on cited precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend their properties were originally paddy lands converted to garden lands before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008; though later included in the Data Bank, the pre-Act conversion exempts them from the Act’s restraints. They seek correction of Data Bank entries, corrections in revenue records, and, where applicable, building permits and building numbers; they request permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to use the lands for other purposes and for a fresh assessment of land as garden land.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through LLMC, must consider corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports; if pre-Act conversion is established, Act does not apply. They emphasize the LLMC's role and compliance with decisions such as Puthan Purakkal Joseph and relevant circulars; building permits and numbers would be issued if the Clause 6 route is granted.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	The court cites it to hold that pre-Act conversions would not attract the Act’s application; a controlling authority on pre-Act status.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited as controlling authority guiding LLMC determinations and procedures, especially in light of this Court’s reasoning.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to justify processing within a defined time frame (one month) in light of precedents on data corrections and orders.

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 Muhammed Basheer K. v. Kozhikode Corporation 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** **FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/26TH KARTHIKA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 17536 of 2017 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** **------------** **MUHAMMED BASHEER K., KOTTILUNGAL HOUSE, MARANCHERI P.O, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 581.** **BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN** **RESPONDENTS:** ## **------------** **1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.** **2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.** **3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.** **4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.** **5. REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, CHAKKORTHKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.K.D.BABU, SC R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.36985/2017 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 17536 of 2017 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1. PHOTOGRAPH NO.1 SHOWS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREA. EXHIBIT P1[A]. PHOTOGRAPHS NO.2 SHOWS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREA. EXHIBIT P1[B]. PHOTOGRAPHS NO.3 SHOWS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREA. EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 5.1.17. EXHIBIT P3. THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TP4/1284/2017 DATED 11.4.17. EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.10.2017 FOR RECEPTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL PETITIONER’S PROPERTY FROM DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.10.2017 UNDER SEC.6 OF KLU ORDER MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.17536, 36985, 37039 & 37080 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 17[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 are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In WPC 17536 of 2017 & con. cases 2 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 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 seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the WPC 17536 of 2017 & con. cases 3 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 competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization WPC 17536 of 2017 & con. cases 4 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 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the WPC 17536 of 2017 & con. cases 5 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/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, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or WPC 17536 of 2017 & con. cases 6 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