Rajan R. Nambiar and Sreemathy Rajan v. District Collector, Collectorate; Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor/ Agricultural Officer

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAJAN R. NAMBIAR AGED 68 YEARS S/O. DEVAKI NAMBIAR, KANNAMPARE THAZHETHETHIL SREEVALSAM, T.M.C. 1/145, TEMPLE AVENUE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 003.** - **2 SREEMATHY RAJAN AGED 59 YEARS W/O. RAJAN R. NAMBIAR, KANNAMPARE THAZHATHETHIL SREEVALSAM, T.M.C. 1/145, TEMPLE AVENUE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 003.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.AMAR RAGH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.** - **3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.** ## **SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **=======================** W.P.(C). No. 5049 of 2020 **=======================** Dated this the 4[th] day of March, 2020 ## **J U D G M E N** T The factual aspects projected in the Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows; That the petitioners purchased the property having an extent of 8.09 ares comprised in Sy.No. 634/2 of Ayyanthole Village, Trissivaperoor Taluk, by virtue of Sale Deed No. 1650 of 2000 of Sub Registrar's Office, Ayyanthole. Though the property was shown as 'nilam' in revenue records, the same was naturally converted to dry land when the petitioners purchased the same and hence after purchase of the property in the year 2006 they submitted an application for permitting them to use the land for other than purpose of cultivation under Rule 6A of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the 1st respondent as early in the year 2006. But thereafter the authorities slept over the file and the inordinate delay in taking a final decision even after there was reports in favour of the petitioners resulted serious damage and loss to the petitioners when the said property was wrongly included in the Data Bank. 1St petitioner as per the direction submitted to exclude their property from the data Bank. But the authorities has not taken any steps so far to redress the grievances of the petitioners and thereby denied their WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 3 legitimate right to use his property in its entirety. Petitioners seeks appropriate direction to the respondents so as to enable the petitioners to make use of their land, for which this Writ Petition is being filed. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioners have filed the afore captioned writ petition (civil) with the following prayers; _“(a) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P2,_ _(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings as per the direction in Exhibit P2 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court._ _(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to exclude the petitioners property having an extent of 8.09 ares comprised in Sy. No. 634/2 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissivaperoor Taluk from the Data Bank._ _(d) Pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.K.Amar Ragh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.A Amminikutty, the learned Govt.Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the petitioners, the subject property concerned has been converted as garden land /purayidom much prior to coming in to force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008. Further WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 4 that the petitioners have filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order, 1967, before the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer seeking for permission for conversion of the subject property as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non agricultural purposes in the year 2008. The fact that the petitioners have filed the said application in the year 2008 is evident and manifest on Ext.P2 proceedings dated 07.08.2008 of the District Collector where in it has been stated that the papers in that regard are being forwarded for its disposal. The complaint of the petitioners is that though the said application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order has been filed as early as in the year 2008, no further action has been forthcoming on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. 4. By Ext.P3, it has been informed by the 2[nd] respondent R.D.O that the papers in relation to the application filed by the petitioners under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order in 2008, are not traceable. 5. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2019(3) KLT 838],_ _**Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2019 (2) KLT 262]_ _**, Salim v. State of Kerala** [2019 (3) KLT 604 (DB)]_ etc,. In the instant case there can not be any dispute that the petitioners have indeed filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order,1967 in the year 2008. It is evidently clear from a reading of Ext.P2 proceedings dated 07.08.2008 issued by none other than the 1st respondent District Collector. The said papers in relation to the said application filed in the year 2008 are now missing as can WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 5 be seen from Ext.P3 letter dated 03.06.2019 issued by the 2[nd] respondent. Since the petitioners have filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order much before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act introducing Sec.27A thereof), it is by now well settled that none of the adverse condition in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Section 27A thereof and the rules framed thereunder could be pressed in to service against the petitioners. In other words the petitioners' case is to be considered, only in terms of Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order and the requirements in Section 27(A) of the amended Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder for payment of higher amounts for getting such formal orders can not be pressed into service against the petitioners. Since the papers are missing, it is ordered that the petitioners may file a fresh application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order before the 2[nd] respondent R.D.O, along with a certified copy of the judgment and such an application should be treated to have been filed by the petitioners in the year 2008, at any rate much before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act including the introduction of Sec.27A thereof). However, in the fitness of things, before passing orders under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order, the petitioners may have to get formal orders for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank. According to the petitioners, they have filed the requisite application for deletion of the subject property from the land data bank before the 3[rd] respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee. If the application in that regard is not immediately traceable, the petitioners may file a fresh application before the 3rd respondent seeking for WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 6 deletion of the subject property from the land data bank. If such an application is so filed, the 3rd respondent will conduct appropriate inspection with due prior notice to the petitioners and may also ensure that copy of the said inspection report should be given to the petitioners in advance and then thereafter will pass orders on the plea of the petitioners for deletion of the subject property from the land data bank without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. 6. After the petitioners obtain orders for deleting the subject property from the land data bank, the 2[nd] respondent R.D.O will take up the aforesaid application under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order filed by the petitioners and treat it as an application filed much before 30.12.2017 as above stated and after following the requisite procedure and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and will pass orders on the plea made by the petitioners for formal permission for conversion of the land as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non agricultural purposes without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the orders to be passed by the 3rd respondent Local Monitoring Committee as above stated. Thereafter, the petitioners after obtaining orders under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order,1967, from the 2nd respondent R.D.O, the petitioners may file the requisite application before the competent Revenue official concerned like Tahsildar seeking for fresh assessment of the subject property under Section 6(A) of the Kerala Land Tax WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 7 Act and in the matter of making additional entries in the B.T.R for showing the property as garden land/purayidom instead of nilam/paddy land etc, in which case the said application will have to be decided by the competent revenue official concerned like Tahsildar in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in the decisions as in _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma** [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)]_ _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk v. Renjith** [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB) etc._ without much delay preferably within a period of one month from the date of submission of the such application. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** **JUDGE** DM WP(C).No.5049 OF 2020(E) 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1650 OF**| |---|---| ||**2000 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,**| ||**AYYANTHOLE DATED 29.3.2000.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B.3-47895/2006**| ||**DATED 7.8.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.6.2019**| ||**BEARING NO.D1-8213/2019.**| **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**