High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions as stated: file cor...

S. Nithyashree v. L.L.M.C Convenor, Velookara Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 12051 of 2017 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2017-10-09
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of with directions: petitioners may file corrections in the prescribed form before Local Level Monitoring Committees for Data Bank corrections; file along with a copy of the judgment; LLMCs to obtain KSRSEC reports on property as of Act commencement; pay prescribed fees; if corrections are allowed, competent authority under KL UO shall issue building permissions or numbers where entitled; petitions to be considered in light of Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector and Kizhakkambalam decisions; order within three months.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions as stated: file corrections in prescribed form, obtain KSRSEC reports, consider under KL UO and related orders, and complete within three months; if permitted, issue permits/numbers accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • S.NITHYASHREE

Respondents

  • L.L.M.C CONVENOR, VELOOKARA GRMA PANCHAYAT, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELOOKKARA, KOTTENELLOOR VILLAGE, KADUPPASSERY PO., PIN-680683, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri.Babu Joseph Pynadath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Senior Government Pleader Sri.Santhosh Peter

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the alleged erroneous inclusion of lands converted from paddy to garden use before the Act. The petitioners contend that several properties, originally paddy lands, were converted prior to the Act and therefore should not be treated under the Act’s provisions; they allege that such properties have been placed in the Data Bank, restricting their ability to use the land for construction and delaying approvals and building numbering. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue record corrections, and in some cases relief to obtain building permits. The respondent Government Pleader notes that many applications are not in prescribed form. The court holds that pre-Act conversion would exempt the properties from the Act, a proposition supported byRevenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, and that Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) are empowered to correct Data Bank entries. If necessary, petitioners may seek permission to use lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KL UO), guided by Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, and subject to relevant decisions such as Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma. The judgment directs petitioners to file in prescribed form with a copy of the judgment, and LLMCs to consider after obtaining KSRSEC reports, with fees, within three months. If permitted, building permits or numbers may be issued, and KL UO procedures may follow.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that since the lands were converted before the Act, they should not be subject to the Data Bank restrictions, and they seek correction of Data Bank entries, correction of revenue records, and, where permissible, building permits and numbers under the applicable orders. They rely on pre-Act conversion evidence and seek LLMC correction as primary relief, with procedural avenues under KL UO for use and development of the lands.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader argues that several applications lack prescribed form and that corrections must proceed under the statutory framework after proper filing in the prescribed format; the court’s judgment, however, treats pre-Act conversion as determinative of applicability while empowering LLMCs to correct entries and directing adherence to prescribed forms and verification protocols.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveThe Apex Court's ruling is cited to support the proposition that if properties were converted prior to the Act, the provisions do not apply, guiding the LLMCs' consideration of pre-Act conversions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited as authority that where applicable, permissions to use land under KL UO may be pursued, and that such determinations should be considered alongside Data Bank corrections.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited to indicate that decisions under KL UO and related procedures should be considered promptly within a structured timeframe.

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 S. Nithyashree v. L.L.M.C Convenor, Velookara Grama Panchayat 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 12051 of 2017 (F)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ----------------------** **S.NITHYASHREE, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. DR. A. SARVALINGAM,(W/O.VINODHKUMAR), HOUSE NO.383-14, ERODE CORPORATION, ROSE GARDEN, VIVEKANANDHAR STREET, ERODE PO., PIN-638011, VEERAPPANCHATRAM VILLAGE, ERODE TALUK, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH PYNADATH** **RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------** **L.L.M.C CONVENOR, VELOOKARA GRMA PANCHAYAT, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELOOKKARA, KOTTENELLOOR VILLAGE, KADUPPASSERY PO., PIN-680683, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.12052/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **TS** ## **WP(C).No. 12051 of 2017 (F)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1582/2012 OF S.R.O VADAKKUMKARA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.2.2017IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER ISUSED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTENELLOOR VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTENELLOOR. EXHIBIT P4; TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2017.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL -------------------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **PS TO JUDGE** **TS** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.12051, 12052, 12062, 12063, 12180, 12439, 13058, 13267, 13327, 13533, 13541, 13983, 13591, 13797, 16920, 16991, 17636, 17673, 18299, 18298 & 18526 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 9[th] day of October, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 2 : petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records and in some cases, receipts evidencing submission of applications are part of W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 3 : the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer** v. **Jalaja Dileep** (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 4 : considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act do not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank are not in the prescribed form. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to the properties. It is also directed W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 5 : that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with a copy of the judgment, the same shall be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report as and when directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority for permission to W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 6 : make use of the properties for other purposes, in case applications have not been preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose by now and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the W.P.(c).No.12051 of 2017 & con. cases : 7 : Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** rsr