R. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- M.A. Abdul Hakhim
- Judgment Date
- 2024-06-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- Disposed by setting aside Ext.P16 and Ext.P20 orders and directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P8 Application strictly in accordance with the provisions under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 without reference to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; petitioner may produce documents to substantiate Ext.P8.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed in part: Ext.P16 and Ext.P20 set aside; matter remitted to consider Ext.P8 strictly under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 within two months; petitioner may submit documents.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- R.VISWANATHAN
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary, Corporation Office, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
- • SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
- • SMT.A.MEGHA
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
- • SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
Case Synopsis & Summary
R. Viswanathan, the petitioner, filed WP(C) No. 39875 of 2018 seeking conversion of two dry lands by Ext.P8 dated September 2016 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The 4th respondent initially treated Ext.P8 as a paddy land/wet land matter under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 and rejected it (Ext.P9). The High Court, by Ext.P15, set aside Ext.P9 and directed a fresh decision; subsequently, the 4th respondent again rejected Ext.P8, this time invoking Section 27A of the 2008 Act (Ext.P16) and the 1st respondent endorsed Ext.P20. The petitioner challenged Exts.P16 and P20, arguing Ext.P8 should be considered under Clause 6(2) of the L.U.O., 1967 without reference to 27A. He relies on Salim v. State of Kerala (2019) and Alex.P.Abraham & Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021) to show that pre-27A Clause 6(2) applications must be decided under the L.U.O., 1967. The Government Pleader argues that pre-27A lands can be governed by Section 27A(3) of the 2008 Act, which permits permission without payment, so Ext.P8 ought to be processed under 27A. The Court ultimately disposes of the petition by setting aside Ext.P16 and Ext.P20, and directing the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 strictly under Clause 6 of the L.U.O., 1967 within two months, allowing the petitioner to produce supporting documents.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Ext.P8 (September 2016) under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 sought conversion of two dryland items. After Ext.P9, Ext.P15 directs reconsideration; Ext.P16 rejects under Section 27A of the 2008 Act. The petitioner argues Ext.P8 must be considered under Clause 6, without reference to 27A, relying on Salim v. State of Kerala (2019) and Alex P. A. Abraham & Others v. RDO (2021) to support pre-27A treatment under the L.U.O., 1967. The Government Pleader contends 27A(3) permits permission without payment for lands converted before 27A, so Ext.P8 should be under 27A. The Court is urged to set aside Ext.P16 and P20 and remand to decide Ext.P8 under Clause 6 with documents.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that even for lands converted before the implementation of the L.U.O., 1967, Section 27A(3) of the 2008 Act provides a remedy permitting permission without payment, necessitating processing Ext.P8 under Section 27A. The 27A regime allegedly governs pre-27A conversions; reliance is placed on the 3/6/2019 statement and the 2008 Act’s scheme. The Government Pleader contends that the petition should be disposed by applying the 27A route rather than solely the L.U.O., 1967 provisions.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salim v. State of Kerala | 2019 (3) KLT 604 | Positive | Division Bench held that pre-27A Clause 6(2) applications should be decided under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. |
| Alex.P.Abraham & Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and Others | 2021(1) KHC 427 | Positive | Subsequent Single Bench decision followed Salim and supported applying Clause 6(2) precedents for pre-27A applications. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 R. Viswanathan 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.