High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions to L...

Nishad Azeem v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 34426 of 2017 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date
2017-11-09
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of directing Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and pass orders on the correction applications for Data Bank entries after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) to determine the land’s position at the commencement of the Act. Petitioners to pay KSRSEC report fees if directed. If data corrections are allowed, petitioners may file applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to use lands for other purposes, with orders by the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer within one month of the LLMC decision. Applications under KLUO to be accompanied by a copy of the writ petition, guided by the decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, and untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016. If Clause 6 requests are granted, petitioners shall be issued building permits or building numbers if entitled, and may seek fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, with considerations in light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, within one month of requests.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of with directions to LLMCs to process corrections of Data Bank entries after KSRSEC reports, and to consider permitting use of lands for other purposes under Clause 6 of the KLUO, subject to time-bound orders and subsequent actions under the KLUO and KLA, guided by cited precedents and not hindered by the 2016 circular.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nishad Azeem

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • District Collector, Ernakulam
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee
  • Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kumbalam
  • Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk
  • Village Officer, Kumbalam Village

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Anoop V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Ravi Krishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

These batch writ petitions challenge the inclusion of lands converted from paddy to garden land in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner contends that his lands were converted to garden land before the Act and, being so pre-Act, should not be subjected to the Act’s restrictions; yet entries in the Data Bank prevent construction, issuance of building permits, and assignment of building numbers. Petitioners seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue-record corrections. They also seek building permits and numbers for constructions, and, in certain petitions, orders for granting such permits or numbers. The court notes that pre-Act conversion may exempt lands from the Act, a principle supported by an Apex Court ruling (Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep). Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) are empowered to correct Data Bank mistakes and to obtain KSRSEC reports to determine the position at the time of Act commencement. The court directs the LLMCs to decide the correction applications within three months, with the cost of a KSRSEC report to be borne as directed. If permitted, petitioners may pursue permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) for changing use, and comply with time-bound orders to issue building permits, numbers, and potential fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act, guided by cited precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner submits that lands were pre-Act paddy lands converted to garden land long before 2008 and were inappropriately placed in the Data Bank under the Act, restricting use, construction, and building permissions. They seek correction of Data Bank entries, revenue-record corrections, and, where applicable, building permits/numbers. They urge consideration by LLMCs and use of Clause 6 of the KLUO for permission to change land use, with timely action and compliance through District Collector/DRO if required.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that lands converted before the Act fall outside the Act’s reach, and LLMCs should verify pre-conversion status before any Data Bank correction. They rely on established jurisprudence that pre-Act conversion could exempt land from the Act, and support LLMCs obtaining KSRSEC reports and issuing timely orders, including processing under KLUO Clause 6 and potential revenue-record adjustments; the aim is to resolve corrections and permit legitimate land-use changes within statutory timelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveUsed to support the principle that lands converted prior to the Act are not subject to the Act; supports the pre-Act conversion argument.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited to justify the path under KLUO Clause 6 for permission to use land for other purposes and to proceed untrammelled by a 2016 circular.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited to inform consideration of fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act in light of proposed uses and requests.

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 Nishad Azeem v. State of Kerala 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** **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/18TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 34426 of 2017 (C)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **----------------------** **NISHAD AZEEM, S/O.AZEEMUDHIN K.K., 'LAKE AVENUE', MANNAM DESOM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-673520.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,** **COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682030.** **3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KUMBALAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682506.** **4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KUMBALAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682506.** **5. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 682031.** **6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 682506.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2017,ALONG WITH WPC.NO.35258/2017 & WPC.N.35895/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **TS** **WP(C).No. 34426 of 2017 (C)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 20/12/2012. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL -----------------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **PS TO JUDGE** **TS** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C).Nos.34426, 35258** ## **&** ## **35895 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 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 W.P.(c).No.34426/17 & con. cases : 2 : 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 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 Banks in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their W.P.(c).No.34426/17 & con. cases : 3 : 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. 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, W.P.(c).No.34426/17 & con. cases : 4 : 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 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 Banks, 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 W.P.(c).No.34426/17 & con. cases : 5 : reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, 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 W.P.(c).No.34426/17 & con. cases : 6 : Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building 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