Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed; directions issued to ap...

P.K. Meethyankutty and others v. Village Officer, Kulasekharamangalam Village Office & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20694 of 2014 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date
2014-08-11
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioners may approach the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer for relief under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The Collector/RDO must hear the petitioners and decide within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The disposal is without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights based on Jalaja Dileep’s case. No costs.”,
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed; directions issued to approach Collector/RDO under Clause 6 of KLUO, hear them, and decide within two months; disposal without costs; with reservation to Jalaja Dileep’s case.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.K.MEETHYANKUTTY
  • K.A.KOCHU MUHAMMED
  • IBRAHIM
  • THILAKAN
  • REMESAN
  • BASHEER

Respondents

  • THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM-686 615
  • THE TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM-686 141
  • THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575
  • THE MARAVANTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MARAVANTHURUTH P.O., PIN-686 608, VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM
  • STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
  • • SRI.M.MUKESH
  • • SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM)
  • • SRI.MURUKESH REGHU

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.K.C.VINCENT

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by six landowners seeks to correct entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register, converting their land records from nilam to purayidom. The lands span about 1.7584 hectares across multiple Sy.Nos. in Kulasekharamangalam Village, Vaikom Taluk, and are supported by tax receipts dated 22.04.2014 and possession/non-attachment certificates. The respondents concede that these properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank. The petitioners rely on Jalaja Dileep’s case (2014 (1) KLT 161) to obtain a declaration that these reclaimed lands may be changed in the records and, without prejudice, to seek permission to convert or use the lands for non-cultivation purposes since they are no longer fit for cultivation. The petitioner’s case hinges on the Collector’s power under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLUO) and the definition of Collector under Clause 2(a) of KLUO, which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer. Citing Praveen K. v. LRC, Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal and related authorities, the court notes that if the land is not found to be paddy or wetland, it must be considered under the KLUO framework. The court directs the petitioners to approach the District Collector or the RDO for such a request, with a hearing and a two-month period to decide, disposed without prejudice to Jalaja Dileep’s case and with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLUO) - Clause 6Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLUO) - Clause 2(a) (definition of Collector)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of Collector under Clause 6 of KLUO to permit utilisation of land for non-agricultural purposes
  • If land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, the application has to be considered under KLUO
  • Jalaja Dileep's case (2014 (1) KLT 161) dictum followed regarding change in Basic Tax Register
  • Praveen K. v. LRC (2010 (2) KHC 499) principle that an application under KLUO should be considered unless land is determined to be paddy land or wetland
  • Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal (2012 (4) KLT 511) scope of Clause 6 for non-agricultural use

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they are titleholders to lands reclaimed long before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, and thus seek declarations to modify Basic Tax Register entries and, if possible, to convert or utilize the land for non-agricultural purposes given that the lands are no longer fit for cultivation. Relying on Jalaja Dileep’s case and the KLUO’s Clause 6, they argued the District Collector or RDO has the power to permit such utilisation after a hearing, with the pending question of whether a declaratory judgment is required. They urged that the lands’ rectification aligns with equity and long-standing possession evidenced by tax receipts from 2014.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents’ content is not elaborated in detail in the judgment. The Government Pleader merely acknowledges that the lands are not part of the Draft Data Bank, and the court’s directions focus on allowing the petitioners to pursue relief under KLUO Clause 6 through the Collector or RDO, with hearing obligations and a two-month decision window, while keeping Jalaja Dileep’s case in reserve.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another2014 (1) KLT 161PositiveCited as the controlling dictum for permission to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register and for considering relief under KLUO in reclaimed land.
Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others2010 (2) KHC 499PositiveQuoted for the principle that an application under KLUO is not to be dismissed before enquiry to determine if land is paddy land or wetland; if not, it should be considered under KLUO.
Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham2012 (4) KLT 511PositiveCited to illustrate that Clause 6 can be used for purposes including construction for industrial use, informing the breadth of permissible utilization.

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 P.K. Meethyankutty and others v. Village Officer, Kulasekharamangalam Village Office & 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/20TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 20694 of 2014 (J) -------------------------------------- ## PETITIONERS : - ------------------- 1. P.K.MEETHYANKUTTY, PALAMATTATHU KUNDI, PARAPPURAM P.O., KANJOOR, ALUVA TALUK, DIST.ERNAKULAM. 2. K.A.KOCHU MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKAN VEEDU, PONJASSERY KARA, THANDEKKADU, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, DIST.ERNAKULAM. 3. IBRAHIM, THEKKINETH VEEDU, VADAKKE EZHIPPURAM KARA, VALAKKULAM, DIST.ERNAKULAM. 4. THILAKAN, SREEMOOLAM, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM. 5. REMESAN, PADANNAYIL, AKKARAPPADOM P.O., VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM. 6. BASHEER, VADAKKANETHIL HOUSE, PONJASSERRY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, DIST.ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.M.MUKESH SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) SRI.MURUKESH REGHU WP(C).No. 20694 of 2014 (J) ## RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM-686 615. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM-686 141. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575. 4. THE MARAVANTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MARAVANTHURUTH P.O., PIN-686 608, VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20694 of 2014 (J) ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS : - P1 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P2 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P3 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P4 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P5 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P6 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P7 COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P8 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P9 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P10 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P11 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2014. - P12 COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14.03.2014. - P13 COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LAND BANK REGISTER. - P14 COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-1477/14 DATED 24.04.2014. - P15 COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-1478/14 DATED 24.04.2014. - P16 COPY OF PETITION DATED 11.07.2014. - P17 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 11.07.2014. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/16/08 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ---------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2014 ## J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the properties, owned by the petitioners, shown as nilam to purayidom. 2. The petitioners 1 to 3 claim to be the owners of the property having an extent of 0.2377 hectare of dry land under T.P.No.21532 comprising in Sy.No.87/1 of Kulasekharamangalam Village as evidenced by Tax receipt dated 22.04.2014. The 2[nd] petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 0.1861 hectare of dry land described as wet land in Village records vide T.P.No.16774, comprising in Sy.Nos.108/1A32 and 108/1B-33 as evidenced by Tax receipt dated W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 2 22.04.2014. The petitioners 1, 4 and 6 claim to be the owners of the property having an extent of 0.5432 hectare of dry land described as wet land in Village records under T.P.No.21020 comprising in Sy.No.87/1 of Kulasekharamangalam Village. The 3[rd] petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 0.2199 hectare of dry land under T.P.No.16743 comprising in Sy.Nos.108/16A, 108/1A and 108/1B of Kulasekharamangalam Village as evidenced by land tax receipt dated 22.04.2014. The 1[st] petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 0.2144 hectare of dry land described as wet land in Village records under T.P.Nos.17077 and 16763 comprising in Sy.Nos.107/21B2, 107/21B1, 107/21A and 108/12A-32 of Kulasekharamangalam Village as evidenced by tax receipt dated 22.04.2014. The petitioners 1, 2 and 5 claim to be the owners of the property having an extent of 0.3571 hectare of dry land described as wet land in Village records under T.P.No.21550 comprising in Sy.No.87/1 of Kulasekharamangalam Village as evidenced by tax W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 3 receipt dated 22.04.2014. In the above manner, all the petitioners claim to be the owners of the properties having a total extend of 1.7584 hectare of land lying in one block in Kulasekharamangalam Village of Vaikom Taluk. 3. It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in _**Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v.**_ _**Jalaja Dileep and another**_ **(2014 (1) KLT 161)** , to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioners are entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 4 other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation. 5. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the “KLUO”) to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in _**Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others**_ **(2010 (2) KHC 499)** held as follows: “If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 5 wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.” 6. In _**Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham**_ **(2012 (4) KLT 511)** another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In _**Praveen's**_ case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector. 7. In the light of the provisions as above, I am of the view that the petitioners can approach either the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the properties are situated with a request in terms of clause 6 of the KLUO. If the request is so received from the petitioners, the Collector shall consider the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this writ petition is W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 6 disposed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to establish any claim based on _**Jalaja Dileep's**_ case (supra). No costs. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE DSV/13/08 # W.P.(C).No. 20694 of 2014 7