High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-01Writ petition allowed. No costs.

Ratheesh Kumar R. v. District Collector, Veeyapuram Grama Panchayath & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7254 of 2017 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. Ext.P11 set aside. LLMC to file a report on removal within two weeks and decide removal within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall file an application for removal within one week, and upon removal the District Collector shall consider conversion of user for constructing a residential building, incorporating a condition that the water channel in the property will not be obstructed. After such conversion is obtained, the petitioner may approach the Panchayat for a building permit, which shall be considered expeditiously on the order of conversion. The petitioner is also to abide by the LLMC findings. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ratheesh Kumar R.

Respondents

District Collector, Collectorate, Alappuzha
Veeyapuram Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary
The Secretary, Veeyapuram Grama Panchayath
The Village Officer, Veeyapuram Village
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Veeyapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Abhishek Kurian
• Sri. T.G. Krishnan (Thrissur)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Raji T. Bhaskar (Government Pleader) for R1, R4, R5
• Sri. M.R. Arunkumar; Sri. P. Shammi Navas for R3

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ratheesh Kumar R. filed WP(C) No. 7254 of 2017 challenging a Panchayat building permit denial for a proposed residential structure on 10.45 ares in Re-survey No.236/16, Veeyapuram. He sought permission under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order) and for conversion of land use. The Veeyapuram Grama Panchayath rejected the application (Ext.P8), and the District Collector rejected the Clause (6) application (Ext.P11) for lack of clear guidance. The petitioner argued the land is converted and should be treated as non-paddy land; Exts.P3 and P4 (Village Officer and Agricultural Officer reports) supported this, showing years of use history and that the land is not suitable for paddy. The court relied on Supreme Court decisions, RDO v. Jalaja Dileep and Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, to reaffirm that pre-2008 conversions fall under the KLU Order and that conversion of land use must be evaluated under that framework, not the Paddy Land Act. The LLMC filed a report indicating the land is converted and not paddy/wetland, and recommended removal from the Data Bank. The court set aside Ext.P11, directed LLMC to decide removal within two weeks, and ordered that, after conversion, the petitioner may apply to the Panchayat for a building permit expeditiously, with a condition that water channels not be obstructed. Writ petition allowed; no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Clause 6)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (Rule 4)Paddy Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends the land is not paddy land and has been converted long before 2008, with reports P3 (Village Officer) and P4 (Agricultural Officer) indicating a conversion history and that the land is not suitable for paddy. The land is included in Data Bank as nilam but remark shows filled up land; the LLMC report also shows it was converted and the water channel must not be obstructed. The Panchayat's Ext.P8 order requiring permission under Clause (6) of KLU Order is legally questionable, as the KLU Order empowers the District Collector to decide matters of land use conversion with the power to remove land from Data Bank; Ext.P11 dismisses the application for lack of clarity, which is unsupported by the KLU Order and by Supreme Court jurisprudence (RDO v Jalaja Dileep; Puthan Purakkal Joseph). The court should follow those decisions and consider conversion of user under the KLU Order, not the Paddy Land Act, and direct LLMC to evaluate the land’s status and remove it from Data Bank if appropriate. The petitioner would then be entitled to approach the Panchayat for building permission; water channels must be safeguarded.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the District Collector’s denial under Clause (6) was appropriate pending clear statutory guidance. They argue that Ext.P11 reflects a lawful application of the KLU framework, and that clarification from the Government cannot be implied; the LLMC’s power to remove land from the Data Bank is limited and the land’s Paddy vs non-paddy status should be resolved within the statutory scheme. They emphasize that building permissions require strict adherence to land-use classifications and cautions about public utilities and water channels. The Government Pleader for R1, R4, R5 and the advocates for R3 maintain that the refusal was in line with statutory requirements and policies, and that the Court should not substitute its own evaluation outside the KLU framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
RDO v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(2) KHC 109(SC)	Positive	Cited to support that only paddy or wetland lands fall under Paddy Land Act; pre-2008 conversions fall under KLU Order; pre-2008 converted lands are to be considered under KLU Order.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Followed for the manner in which applications under KLU Order are to be considered, as guided by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

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 Ratheesh Kumar R. v. District Collector, Veeyapuram Grama Panchayath & 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 7254 of 2017 (F) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER :** - **----------** **RATHEESH KUMAR R.,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. V.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOYIKKAL, VADAKKATHIL, VELLANKULANGARA, HARIPPADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690514.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN** **SRI.T.G.KRISHNAN (THRISSUR)** **RESPONDENTS :** - **-----------** **1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.** **2. VEEYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VEEYAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.** **3. THE SECRETARY,** - **VEEYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VEEYAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, VEEYAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.** **5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VEEYAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.** **R1,R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 7254 of 2017 (F) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF LAND REVENUE TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER, VEEYAPURAM STATING THAT PETITIONER IS HAVING NO OTHER LAND IN HIS NAME OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN RESURVEY NUMBER 236/16.** **EXHIBIT P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT STATING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VEEYAPURAM STATING THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PACCA DRY LAND FILLED WITH RED SOIL AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PADDY CULTIVATION. EXHIBIT P5:- THE SITE AND LOCATION PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. EXHIBIT P6:- THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PLAN. EXHIBIT P7:- THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYATH ON RECEIVING THE APPLICATION DATED 18/08/2016. EXHIBIT P8:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9:- A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR OF THE PRESENT STATUS OF PROPERTY, DATED 19/11/2016, SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER.** **WP(C).No. 7254 of 2017 (F) ---------------------------** **EXHIBIT P10:- A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 16/11/2016 PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER.** **EXHIBIT P11:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P12:- THE ORIGINALS OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 7254 of 2017 F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 2017 **==> picture [128 x 21] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner is concerned with 10.45 Ares of land comprised in Block No.6, Re-Sy.No.236/16 in Veeyapuram The for construction of a Village. petitioner applied residential building in the property; in which the Panchayat issued Ext.P8 order directing the petitioner to obtain a permission under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short the “KLU Order” only). The petitioner approached the District Collector with a Clause (6) application which was rejected as per Ext.P11. The land owned by the petitioner is included in the Data Bank as “nilam”, but on the remark column, it is shown as “filled up land”. 2. The petitioner relies on Exts.P3 and P4 reports to WPC.No. 7254/2017 : 2 : contend that the land was filled up almost 30 years back. Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer in which the various existing trees in the property are noticed and it is certified that the land seems to have been converted 35 years back; existing with standing trees having an age range from 10 to 25 years. The report of the Agricultural Officer as seen from Ext.P4 is also in consonance with the report of the Village Officer. 3. The District Collector has rejected the application under Clause (6); by Ext.P11 for reason of there being no clarification as to how the applications are to be considered. The District Collector who is an authority as constituted under the KLU Order has to exercise his statutory powers using the discretion as conferred by the subordinate legislation and there is no warrant for seeking a clarification from the Government. For that reason alone, Ext.P11 would stand set aside. WPC.No. 7254/2017 : 3 : 4. As for the application for conversion of user the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RDO v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(2) KHC 109(SC)] has held that only properties included as “paddy” or “wetland” would be covered under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short “Paddy land Act” only). Any other property which is converted prior to 2008 i.e, the year of introduction of the Paddy Land Act would be covered under the KLU Order, 1967. Any application for conversion of user would have to be made under the KLU Order; was the finding. This Court following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, has also detailed the manner in which such applications are to be considered in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3) KLT 182] . The District Collector hence need not have sought for any clarification from the Government to consider such application. ## 5. In the present case, this Court had directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short “the LLMC” only) to file a report on the lie and nature of the property, WPC.No. 7254/2017 : 4 : which has been placed on record by memo dated 19.07.2017. The decision of the LLMC is also placed on record which was arrived at after conducting physical inspection of 10.45 Ares of property in Re.Sy. No.236/16. The boundaries of the subject property is detailed by the LLMC in its decision. On the north is a property having coconut and arecanut palms and a mango tree having age between 5 to 20 years. It is also an elevated land filled with red earth. The subject property is said to be one converted about 40 years back and there is no paddy cultivation reported in the nearby areas. 6. The decision of the LLMC also shows that at the point of entry into the property there is a water channel which cannot be obstructed. The LLMC has opined that any obstruction caused to the water channel would have deleterious effect on the adjacent properties and result in water logging. The petitioner undertakes that the water channel would not be obstructed or filled up. The LLMC had WPC.No. 7254/2017 : 5 : decided to grant permission to construct a building in the property. The petitioner has applied for a building permit to construct a residential building in the said property. 7. The procedure to be followed by the LLMC is not to grant exemption for construction of a residential building which the LLMC is not empowered to grant. The LLMC however is empowered to remove the land from the Data Bank as provided for by the amendment to Rule (4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner would be entitled to make such an application for removal, which based on the decision of the LLMC produced herein has to be allowed. The petitioner will file an application within one week from today and the LLMC would decide the same within two weeks. In the context of the land being included as paddy land, but the report of the LLMC indicating it to be converted prior to 2008, it is only proper that the petitioner's application be allowed. The Village WPC.No. 7254/2017 : 6 : Officer's report and the Agricultural Officer's report also shows that the petitioner's land is a converted land. Ext.P11 would stand set aside. 8. The report of the LLMC would clearly indicate that the land is not included as paddy land or wet land. In such circumstance, the District Collector shall also consider the conversion of user for the purpose of constructing a residential building in the property but however incorporating the condition that the water channel in the property will not be obstructed in any manner. After such conversion is obtained the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Panchayat for a building permit, which shall be considered expeditiously on the order of the conversion being produced. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- - (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge