High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-07-24Appeal dismissed

Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi v. T.V. Mohan and Others (WA No. 820 of 2020)

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.820 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
Judgment Date: 2020-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; no interference with the learned Single Judge’s decision. The Sub Collector’s orders were not to be read beyond the post-2017 amendments, and the court affirmed that 27A could not be invoked for pre-cutoff applications under Order 1967. The decision leaves the existing framework intact and directs no further alteration beyond what Mariyumma and Jalaja Dileep establish.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
Village Officer, Elamkulam Village Office
Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk
State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Revenue (P) Department
District Collector, Ernakulam

Respondents

T.V. Mohan
T.V. Rohit
Dr. Paul Puthuran
Dr. Mani Puthuran
Anna Ros h Varghese
Dr Ros Varghese
Sara Paul Puthuran
Dr. Eapen Joseph

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G.P. Tek Chand, Government Pleader

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Sankaran Kutty Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal challenges a division of the learned Single Judge’s order in W.P.(C). No. 18569/2018, which partially set aside Exts. P20–P27—Sub Collector Fort Kochi’s orders granting permissions for utilization of unnotified paddy fields for purposes other than cultivation under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Order 1967)—and linked the matter to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 2008), as amended on 30-12-2017. The appellants, comprising the Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi, the Village Officer Elamkulam, the Tahsildar Kanayannur Taluk, the State of Kerala (represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department), and the District Collector, contended that Clause 6(2) of the Order 1967 permitted grant of such utilization, and that the post-2017 amendments under Act 2008 (Sections 27A–27D) should govern unnotified paddy fields, with 27A applying to the cases at hand; these conditions were to be maintained. The respondents, owners of paddy lands whose entries in the Basic Tax Register show Nilam/Nancha, opposed the conditions and argued for adherence to the earlier statutory framework. The High Court, in a division bench led by Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, held that Section 27A cannot apply to pre-cutoff applications under Order 1967, relied on Tahsildar v Renjith George and Mariyumma, and confirmed the trial court’s approach, dismissing the appeal and leaving the Single Judge’s decision intact. The net result is that the appeal is dismissed, preserving the status quo and the statutory architecture governing land-use changes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Sections 27A to 27D of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Amendment effective 30 December 2017 (Section 27A)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Without defacing the original entry in the Basic Tax Register (as held in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep)
Additional entries can be made in the Basic Tax Register to reflect change in land use (per Jalaja Dileep and Mariyumma)
When the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no power vested to expand the scope of the provisions by issuing directions against the mandate of law (per Renjith George/Tahsildar v Renjith George)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Clause 6(2) of Order 1967 permits utilization of paddy fields for purposes other than cultivation; following the 2017 amendments, Sections 27A–27D of Act 2008 should govern unnotified paddy fields, with 27A applicable prospectively from 30-12-2017. They contended that pre-cutoff applications under the Order 1967 must be adjudicated under the pre-Amendment framework, and that adding conditions under Section 27A for those pre-cutoff cases was beyond the law; and that the Basic Tax Register should be updated without defacing the original entry, in line with Mariyumma/Jalaja Dileep principles.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Sub Collector’s orders are to be read in light of Act 2008’s amendments; Section 27A governs unnotified paddy fields and the conditions imposed by the Sub Collector fall within the contemplated framework post-2017 amendments. They argued that the 2017 amendments are applicable to the cases, and that the pre-cutoff petitions should be interpreted in the context of the updated regulatory regime, not by ignoring the legislative changes.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariyumma	2015(2)KLT 516	Positive	Cited to support the principle that basic tax register alterations can occur through new entries without defacing existing ones; used to justify updating the BTR per Mariyumma.
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1)KLT 984(SC)	Positive	Cited for the proposition that the original entry in the Basic Tax Register should not be defaced; supports allowing additional entries for changes in land use.
Tahsildar v. Renjith George	2020(2)KLT 13	Positive	Used to affirm that pre-cutoff applications under Order 1967 must be adjudicated under pre-27A framework; supports the view that 27A has no retroactive application to those cases.

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 Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi v. T.V. Mohan and Others (WA No. 820 of 2020) 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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WA.No.820 OF 2020** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18569/2018(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** ||**1**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER** **FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-2 ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| |---|---|---| ||**2**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** **ELAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 020**| ||**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR** **KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16**| ||**4**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (P)** **DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**| ||**5**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,** **COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030**| |||**BY SRI. G.P.TECK CHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ||**1**|**T.V.MOHAN** **AGED 68 YEARS** **S/O.LATE T.A.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT 204, 100 FEET** **ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038**| |---|---|---| ||**2**|**T.V.ROHIT,** **AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O. T.V.MOHAN, RESIDING AT 204, 100 FEET ROAD,** **INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038**| ||**3**|**DR.PAUL PUTHURAN** **AGED 75 YEARS** **S/O. DR.GEORGE PUTHURAN, RESIDING AT PUTHURAN**| WA.No.820 OF 2020 2 |||**HOUSE, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011**| |---|---|---| ||**4**|**DR.MANI PUTHURAN** **AGED 46 YEARS** **S/O. PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL PUTHURAN,** **RESIDING AT PUTHURAN HOUSE, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011**| ||**5**|**ANNA ROSH VARGHESE** **DAUGHTER OF DR. PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL** **PUTHURAN AND WIFE OF DR.ROSH VARGHESE, AGED 47** **YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.9C, SKYLINE TOPAZ,** **KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O., PIN-682** **020**| ||**6**|**DR.ROSH VARGHESE** **AGED 53 YEARS** **SON OF DR.I.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.9C,** **SKYLINE TOPAZ, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA** **P.O., PIN-682 020**| ||**7**|**SARA PAUL PUTHURAN** **AGED 40 YEARS** **DAUGHTER OF DR.PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL** **PUTHURAN, RESIDING AT VILLA SKYLINE ORION, NH 17,** **OPPOSITE AL AMEEN SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY-682 024**| ||**8**|**DR.EAPEN JOSEPH,** **AGED 64 YEARS** **S/O. P.V.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1B, ABAD** **ORIENTAL GARDEN, MAMANGALAM PIN-682 025** **BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY**| **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.820 OF 2020 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 24th day of July 2020** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY, J.** This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.18569/2018 dated 13.08.2019, by the respondents in the writ petition, whereby, the learned Single Judge has set aside Exts.P20 to P27 orders passed by the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, partly, in applications filed by the writ petitioners, to the extent they are against the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Order 1967') _vis-a-vis_ the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called the 'Act 2008'), as amended on and with effect from 30.12.2017, in regard to conversion of paddy land. Learned Single Judge after setting aside the conditions incorporated in the orders impugned, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to make necessary changes WA.No.820 OF 2020 4 in the Basic Tax Register, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat V/s. Mariyumma [2015(2)KLT 516]**_ (DB). The sole question arises for consideration is whether any interference is required in the Judgment impugned. 2. Heard learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand for the appellants and Sri.P.Sankarankutty Nair appeared for the respondents. 3. Writ petitioners were owners of paddy fields, and the entries in the Basic Tax Register maintained by the concerned Village against those properties are having the entry of 'Nilam/Nancha'. Prior to the introduction of the Act 2008, the paddy fields were guided and controlled by the provisions of the Order 1967. However, as per the provisions of Act, 2008, if any paddy fields are notified under Act 2008, applications are to be filed before the Local Level Monitoring committee constituted under the Act to remove such properties from the data bank, and if the said authority is satisfied it will do so after WA.No.820 OF 2020 5 complying with the conditions prescribed there under. Still, for the utilisation of the paddy field for different purposes other than for paddy cultivation and agricultural operations, an order had to be secured from the statutory authority as per the provisions of the Order, 1967. But if any paddy fields were not notified under the provisions of Act 2008, only an application under the Order, 1967 was required, and an owner of a paddy field was entitled to file an application under clause 6(2) thereunder before the authority prescribed. While so, Act 2008 was amended introducing sections 27A to 27D to deal with unnotified paddy fields incorporating various procedures, with effect from 30-12-2017. 4. In terms of Clause 6(2), writ petitioners have submitted applications before the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, seeking utilization of the properties for other purposes, admittedly prior to the cut off date, 30-12-2017, since their paddy fields were unnotified. The Sub Collector accordingly, has passed Exts.P20 to P27 WA.No.820 OF 2020 6 orders granting permission, however, incorporating conditions in terms of Section 27A of Act 2008. Therefore, the question that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was, whether the Sub Collector was right in imposing conditions in applications submitted under Clause 6(2) of the Order 1967, prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017. 5. Learned Single Judge after assimilating the fact situations, has arrived at the conclusion that, Section 27A introduced on and with effect from 30.12.2017, has no application in any request made by the writ petitioners under the provisions of the Order 1967, and it was accordingly that the conditions were quashed and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to carry out necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register in terms of the proposition of law laid down in _**Mariyumma**_ (supra) which laid down the law that, without defacing the original entry in the basic tax register as was held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divsional Officer v. Jalaja** WA.No.820 OF 2020 7 **Dileep** [2015(1)KLT 984(SC)], additional entries can be made therein with respect to the change in the nature of the land. 6. The issue was considered by this court in _**Tahsildar V/s. Renjith George [2020(2)KLT 13]**_ and has held that, if the application is filed under Clause 6(2) of the Order 1967, prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017, the application will have to be considered in terms of the Order 1967, and the provisions of Section 27A, and the consequential provisions newly introduced will have no application. The said proposition laid down by this court will clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, and therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. In _**Renjith George**_ (supra), this court has held that, when the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no power vested with the statutory authority to expand the scope of the provisions of law by WA.No.820 OF 2020 8 issuing directions against the mandate of law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made out any case justifying interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. **Sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** uu/24.07.2020