P. Velayudhan v. The Land Revenue Commissioner, Office of the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur; Village Officer, Naduvattom; Cheerankulangara Fathima

WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.KORU, VALIYAPARAMPOOR, P.O. ANANTHAVOOR, VIA THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 636 701. BY ADV R.RAMADAS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 101. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVATTOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 592. 4 CHEERANKULANGARA FATHIMA, W/O.PALATH HYDROSE, ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, VALIYAPARAPOOR DESOM, ANANTHAVOOR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 301. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.SIVADAS SRI.RENJITH T.R, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No. 32741 of 2010** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “(a) Call for the records of the case leading upto Exts.P5 and P6 and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from proceeding with Exts.P5 and P6 orders. (c) Declare that the petitioner's property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to inspect the 4[th] respondent's property and to take appropriate action against the 4[th] respondent for violating the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. and (e) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be prayed for and which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue under the circumstances of the case.” [SIC] WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 3 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1[st] respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitioner is the absolute owner of nearly 10½ cents of property situated in R.S.No. 54/10 and 55/4 of Naduvattom Village in Tirur Taluk. According to the petitioner, this is the only property of the petitioner and he is residing with his family in the nearby Tharawad house. It is also the case of the petitioner that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and for the last 45 years, no paddy cultivation was done in the said property. On the southern side of the petitioner's property, a 'thodu' having 8 feet width is situated and the same is situated at a higher level, is the case of the petitioner. In between the petitioner's property and 'thodu' on the southern side, a small canal having a width of 3 feet is situated. On the northern side of the petitioner's property also, a 'thodu' is situated. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not filled up his plot. He has only dug a well in his property in 2003 for seasonal vegetable cultivation. The 4[th] respondent filed a complaint on 29.9.2004 before the WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 4 2[nd] respondent alleging that the petitioner has filled up his plot and because of that, the 4[th] respondent and other neighbouring owners are not able to undertake paddy cultivation in their respective properties. Ext.P1 is the complaint. On receipt of Ext.P1, the 2[nd] respondent issued notice to the petitioner directing him to appear before him for enquiry and the petitioner appeared and filed Ext.P2 objection. The petitioner denied all the averments in Ext.P1 in Ext.P2 complaint. The 3[rd] respondent submitted Ext.P3 report. It is the case of the petitioner that even in Ext.P3, there is nothing to show that the property in dispute is cultivated with paddy for three years prior to the commencement of Land Utilization Order. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection to Ext.P3 report also as evident by Ext.P4. But, the 2[nd] respondent passed Ext.P5 Form No.E notice. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal as per clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent rejected the appeal as per Ext.P6. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice is issued to WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 5 the 4[th] respondent, there is no appearance for the 4[th] respondent. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the case of the respondents are accepted, no orders can be passed as per the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 in this case. The submission of the counsel is that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner is cultivating any food crops for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of the Land Utilisation Order. The counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in **Aishabeevi v. Superintendent of Police** [2014 (3) KLT 1078] and **Pankajakshan v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2005 (1) KLT SN 147]. 4. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the authority concerned considered the matter in detail and there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The point to be decided is whether Ext.P5 is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Clause 6(1) of the Land Utilisation Order is extracted hereunder: WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 6 6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop. - (1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. 6. On a perusal of the above clause, it is clear that no holder of any land which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. This Court perused Ext.P3 report of the 3[rd] respondent. A perusal of Ext.P3 will not show that the petitioner is cultivating any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of the Land Utilisation Order. If that is the case, according to me, the authority concerned erred in passing Ext.P5 based on WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 7 Ext.P3. When this writ petition came for consideration on 10.10.2022, this Court passed the following order: “The 3[rd] respondent is directed to inspect the property and submit a report before this Court about the nature of the property. The report shall be placed on record within two weeks.” 7. The Village Officer, after inspecting the property, submitted a report dated 11.11.2022. A perusal of the same also will not show that there is anything to show that the petitioner was cultivating any food crops 3 years prior to the commencement of the Land Utilisation Order. If that is the case, according to me, the impugned orders will not sustain. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3, P5 and P6 are quashed. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 32741 OF 2010 8 ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.9.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 25.3.2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTY ALONG WITH THE PLAN BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 21.11.2007 TO THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. E. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2010 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL