High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-26Writ petition disposed of; Exts. P16–P19 set as...

Muhammed Haneefa I and Yusaf I v. District Collector, Palakkad; Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; Tahasildar, Alathur Taluk; Village Officer, Mathur I; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur; Local Level Monitoring Committee (Constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008) represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 22222 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: Exts. P16, P17, P18 and P19 cannot be sustained. The Court sets them aside and directs the 2nd respondent to pass orders effecting the change of nature of the petitioners’ properties covered by Form No.6 applications and to pass appropriate orders subject to payment of fees, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Exts. P16–P19 set aside; directions to decide Form No.6 applications and issue orders changing the land’s nature within two months, subject to fees.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Haneefa I
Yusaf I

Respondents

District Collector, Palakkad
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk, Alathur, Palakkad District
Village Officer, Mathur I, Mathur Village
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur
Local Level Monitoring Committee (Constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008) represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SHEJI P.ABRAHAM; ABRAHAM JOSEPH (Advocate, K/003235/2023)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. G. Sheeba (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Muhammed Haneefa I and Yusaf I, are in joint possession of two parcels of land in Mathur I village, Palakkad district, described in Resurvey Nos. 579/32 and 579/31, as per Ext. P1 and Ext. P2, which they claim are unnotified lands. They filed Form No.6 applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking a change of nature of the land. Their requests were rejected by Exts. P16 and P17, prompting appeals under Section 27B before the District Collector, who, through Exts. P18 and P19, maintained the rejection on the ground that there is a pond on the property and the change would affect the water regime. The petition asserts that the mere existence of a pond cannot invalidate a Form 6 application since Section 2(xii) defines paddy land to include allied constructions like ponds, and no finding has been made that the pond is man-made or an allied construction. The court cites George Varghese v. District Collector (2023) to emphasize that the key inquiry is whether changing the land would impede the free flow of water to adjoining paddy fields and harm cultivation, not merely the presence of a pond. Exts. P16–P19 are set aside, and the court directs the 2nd respondent to decide Form No.6 applications and issue orders changing the land’s nature, subject to fees, within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, Rule 12(4)Section 27A of the Act, 2008Section 27B of the Act, 2008Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Only aspect to be ascertained by the RDO is whether change of nature would affect the free flow of water to adjoining paddy fields (George Varghese v. District Collector, 2023 (7) KHC 93).
A pond can be treated as a 'paddy land' only if it is an allied construction of a paddy land (definition in the Act).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their lands are unnotified and Form No.6 applications under the Act, 2008 for change of nature were improperly rejected by Exts. P16 and P17. They challenge Exts. P18 and P19 (District Collector’s orders) on grounds that the Village Officer’s report (Ext. P7) does not establish that changing the land would impede the free flow of water to adjoining paddy fields or that the pond renders the land unfit for paddy cultivation. They rely on Section 2(xii) which includes ponds as part of paddy land if allied to cultivation, and on George Varghese v. District Collector (2023) to argue that the decisive issue is water flow, not merely the existence of a pond. They seek a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant the change of nature, with fees, expeditiously.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain the RDO’s reports (Exts. P7, P16, P17) and the District Collector’s Exts. P18 and P19, arguing that the presence of a pond affects the water regime and thus the change of nature should be refused. They rely on the statutory framework, including Rule 12(4) of the Rules and Sections 27A/27B, to justify the decision that pond presence and water flow implications can deny Form No.6 applications.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
George Varghese v. District Collector	2023 (7) KHC 93	Positive	Cited to state that the core inquiry for Form 6 is whether the change would affect the free flow of water to adjoining paddy fields, guiding the court's reasoning.

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 Haneefa I and Yusaf I v. District Collector, Palakkad; Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; Tahasildar, Alathur Taluk; Village Officer, Mathur I; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur; Local Level Monitoring Committee (Constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008) represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mathur 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 22222 OF 2023 ## PETITIONERS: - 1 MUHAMMED HANEEFA I AGED 49 YEARS S/O. LATE ISMAIL, ALINKAL HOUSE, CHUNGAMANNAM, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD KERALA, PIN – 678 571. - 2 YUSAF I AGED 47 YEARS - S/O. LATE ISMAIL, ALINKAL HOUSE, CHUNGAMANNAM, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD KERALA, PIN – 678 571. BY ADVS. SHEJI P.ABRAHAM ABRAHAM JOSEPH(K/003235/2023). ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. - 2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. - 3 THE TAHASILDAR ALATHUR TALUK, ALATHUR PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 541. W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 2 : - 4 VILLAGE OFFICER MATHUR I, MATHUR VILALGE, ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 005. - 5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, MATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 571. - 6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 571. ## BY ADV. SMT.G.SHEEBA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 3 : ## JUDGMENT The petitioners are in joint possession of an extent of 5 cents of land in Block No.13 in Resurvey No.579/32 in Tandaper No.6255 of Alathur Taluk, Mathur I Village in Palakkad District as per Ext. P1 settlement deed. The 2[nd] petitioner is in absolute possession of 5 cents of land in Block No.13 in Resurvey No.579/31 in Tandaper No.4375 of the same village, by virtue of Ext. P2 purchase deed. According to the petitioners, the said properties are un-notified lands, and they submitted Form No.6 applications before the 2[nd] respondent under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act, 2008’) for change of nature of the properties. However, their applications were rejected W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 4 : by Exts.16 and P17 orders. Against Exts. P16 and P17, the petitioners preferred appeals under Section 27 B of the Act, 2008 before the District Collector. The District Collector passed Exts. P18 and P19 orders rejecting the appeals stating that there is a pond in the property. Exts. P16, P17, P18 and P19 are impugned in this writ petition. 2. Section 27A of the Act, 2008 deals with the change of nature of land. Rule 12 (4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of land pursuant to an application under Form No.6. On receipt of an application in Form No.6, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall obtain a report from the Village Officer and based on the report of the Village W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 5 : Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to ascertain whether the change of nature of land would affect the free flow of water to the adjoining paddy fields. In George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] this Court has held that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application, seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. Ext. P7 report of the Village Officer does not state that the change of nature of land would affect the free flow of water to the adjoining paddy fields. W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 6 : The report further states that there are no adjoining paddy fields. The existence of a pond by itself cannot be a reason for rejecting an application in Form No.6 unless it is satisfied that the conversion of the pond would lead to the blockage of water to the adjacent paddy fields. Further, Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008 defines "paddy land" to mean all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage, channels, ponds and canals. In order to treat a pond as a paddy land, it has to be an allied construction of a paddy land. There is no finding by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the District Collector that the pond is man made or W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 7 : it is an allied construction of a paddy land. 3. None of these parameters have been considered by the RDO in Exts. P16 and P17. In Exts. P18 and P19 orders, the District Collector has reiterated the version of the RDO in Exts. P16 and P17. Accordingly, Exts. P16 and P17 cannot be sustained and consequently, Exts. P18 and P19 also cannot be sustained. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also refers to Exts. P20 and P21 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad in respect of the property in the same survey number in which the pond referred to in Exts. P16 and P17 was in existence. Accordingly, Exts. P16, P17, P18 and P19 orders W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 8 : are set aside. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to pass orders effecting change of nature of the properties of the petitioners covered by Form No.6 applications and pass appropriate orders subject to payment of fees, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ## MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 9 : ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22222/2023 ## PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED OF PETITIONERS' FATHER DTD 22.4.1996 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. - Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD 1.8.2007. - Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE THANDAPER DETAILS OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD 16.2.2021. - Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE THANDAPER DETAILS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P2 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD 16.2.2021. - Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD 5.6.2023 OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY. - Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD 5.6.2023 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. - Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD 5.3.2022 REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 10 : - Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1 DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P9 - COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD 5.3.2022 REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. - Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P2 DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THEIR PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1 DTD 5.6.2023. - Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX REMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P2 DTD 12.4.2023. - Exhibit P13 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY INCLUDING PETITIONERS' PROPERTY. - Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 9.12.2020 REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1. - Exhibit P15 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 9.12.2020 REGARDING THE NATURE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P2. W. P.(C) No.22222 of 2023 : 11 : - Exhibit P16 THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOPKD/4840/2022-J2 DTD 14.11.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1. - Exhibit P17 - THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOPKD/4841/2022-J2 DTD 14.11.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P2. - Exhibit P18 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCPKD/759/2023LRG3 DTD 29.5.2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1. - Exhibit P19 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCPKD/ 657/ 2023LRG3 DTD 28.5.2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. - Exhibit P20 COPY OF AN ORDER NO. A 7941/11 DTD 25.10.2013. ## RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BTR. PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P21 - COPY OF AN ORDER NO. A 927/16 DTD 3.6.2016. ## RESPONDENT EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH.