High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-07W.P.(C).Nos.12646, 35416, 35594 & 35636 of 2017...

Nisha v. Thiruvegappura Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 12646 of 2017 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and pass orders on the petitions for correction of the Data Bank after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) regarding the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. Petitioners shall pay KSRSEC fees if directed. If the LLMCs grant relief under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, competent authorities shall issue building permits or numbers, and may proceed with fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act to reclassify properties as garden lands where applicable, in light of cited precedents (Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector; Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma) within the stated timelines. Compliance is to be achieved within three months from receipt of the judgment copy.
Final Disposition: W.P.(C).Nos.12646, 35416, 35594 & 35636 of 2017 disposed of directing LLMCs to consider corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports and to proceed with building permissions or numbers under Clause 6 of KLUO where applicable; reports and orders to be issued within three months; potential reclassification under Kerala Land Tax Act as per precedents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nisha, wife of Dravyan

Respondents

Thiruvegappura Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thiruvegappura Grama Panchayat represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Santheeep Ankarath
• C.K. Sherin

Counsels for Respondents

• Saijo Hassan
• Rafeeq V.K.
• Benoj C Augustine
• Vishnu Bhuvanendran
• P.Parvathy
• Santosh Peter (Senior Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners claim their properties were originally paddy lands converted to garden lands long before the Act, but were subsequently included in the Data Bank, restricting their ability to use the land for building construction, obtaining permits, or having buildings numbered. They seek corrections of Data Bank entries and related entries in revenue records, and in some petitions seek building permits or numbers for structures already erected. The court notes that if a property was converted prior to the Act, the Act would not apply to that property, citing Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). Crucially, the court holds that whether a property was converted before the Act is a determination for the Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs), which possess authority to correct Data Bank mistakes. The LLMCs are to obtain reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) to determine the position at the time of Act commencement, and to decide on corrections after considering such evidence. Petitioners may be required to pay KSRSEC fees if directed. If a petition under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order is granted, authorities shall issue building permits or numbers and reassess land use in light of related precedents. The Court also cites Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam decisions to guide permissions and timelines, directing compliance within three months and allowing reclassification or permits where appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO)Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their properties were converted to garden lands prior to the 2008 Act, and therefore should not be governed by the Data Bank under the Act. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and corresponding relief including building permissions and numbering. They submit LLMCs have the power to rectify Data Bank entries and direct reliance on KSRSEC reports to determine status at Act commencement; if permitted by authorities, they should be allowed to pursue permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6) and seek reclassification to garden land for tax purposes.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the Data Bank framework and LLMC’s role to correct it based on the law. They argue that the Act may apply where pre‑ Act conversions exist unless proven otherwise, and that orders should be issued after due process, including technical reports from KSRSEC and compliance with existing Circulars. They rely on established precedents to interpret permission pathways under KLUO and cost-sharing for reports.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited as controlling authority that pre‑Act conversions exclude a property from the Act; basis for the court’s observation that pre‑Act conversions may not fall within the Act’s applicability.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Used to support the procedure under Clause 6 of the KLUO, enabling use of land for other purposes with permission and directing authorities to act within a defined timeframe.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to guide timelines and reassessment actions under welfare provisions related to land use and taxation.

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 Nisha v. Thiruvegappura Grama Panchayat 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/16TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 12646 of 2017 (E)** **-----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **NISHA, W/O.DRAVYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KARAYIKUNNATH HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.C.K.SHERIN** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THIRUVEGAPPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:679 304.** **2. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THIRUVEGAPPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:679 304.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.P.PARVATHY R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 35416 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** ## **WP(C).No. 12646 of 2017 (E)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.2177/2007 DATED 26.10.2007 OF VILAYOOR SRO EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.1851/2015 DATED 12.08.2015 OF VILAYOOR SRO EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS.) SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG BUILDING THEREIN.** - **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 25.08.2017.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVEGAPPURA.** **EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THIS RESPONDENT.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.12646, 35416, 35594** ## **&** ## **35636 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 7[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 W.P.(c).No.12646 of 2017 & con. cases : 2 : 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 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 W.P.(c).No.12646 of 2017 & con. cases : 3 : 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. 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 W.P.(c).No.12646 of 2017 & con. cases : 4 : 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 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, W.P.(c).No.12646 of 2017 & con. cases : 5 : within three months 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, the petitioners shall be issued building W.P.(c).No.12646 of 2017 & con. cases : 6 : 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