High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions as s...
Seenath v. District Collector, Malappuram District and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 30441 of 2017 (E)
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2017-11-15
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions disposed of with directions: the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order is to verify via LLMC Conveners (and Village Officers) whether the properties were converted prior to the Act and whether they are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. Reports must be sought within a week and forwarded within one month after judgment. If reports are favorable, the competent authority shall decide on permissions to use properties for other purposes under Clause 6 of the KL U Order within one month, issuing building permits or numbers as applicable. Petitioners may also seek fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act for garden lands, which authorities must consider. The Court also instructs compliance with decisions in Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Shivadasan and cites Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma in guiding timelines.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of with directions as stated in the judgment.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Seenath, D/o.Saidalavi, Aged 26 Years, Kolothodi, Kombamkallu, Pathricoe PO, Malappuram District
Respondents
- District Collector, Civil Station, Malappuram District-679101
- Local Level Monitoring Committee, Edapatta Grama Panchayat, represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Edapatta
- Sub Collector, Perinthalmannna, Malappuram
- Village Officer, Edapatta, Malappuram
- Edapatta Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Edapatta PO, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri K. Mohanakannan
- • Smt. A. R. Pravitha
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri K. J. Manuraj
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenges the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the related data-bank framework, seeking permission to use their properties for non-agricultural purposes and/or correction of entries in revenue records and data banks. The petitioners allege their lands were originally paddy fields that were later converted to garden land before the Act came into force, or are not shown as paddy land in the data banks, resulting in restrictions on building permits and numbering of constructed structures. They have filed applications under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, seeking permission to use their lands for other purposes, and/or requests for deletion or correction in the data banks and for building permits or numbers. The learned Government Pleader contends that errors in the draft/final Data Banks exist and that amendments brought by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017 empower Local Level Monitoring Committees to effect corrections, after verifying that properties are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. The court cites Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep and judgments in Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Shivadasan to explain the scope of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Ultimately, the petitions are disposed with directions to obtain reports from LLMCs, inspect properties, and proceed within set timeframes to grant permissions, numbers, or building permits if favourable, while considering fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that their pre-Act conversions should exempt their land from the Act’s prohibitions and data-bank constraints. They seek permission under Clause 6 of the KLU Order to use their properties for non-agricultural purposes, including construction, and request corrections in revenue records and data banks, along with building permits or numbers where entitled. They emphasize protection of their prior conversions and seek swift consideration and relief.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submission, through the Government Pleader, is that errors exist in the Data Banks and that the 2017 Amendment Rules authorize Local Level Monitoring Committees to correct the Data Banks after verifying that properties are not liable to be included. They advocate a process of inspection, report collection from LLMCs, and time-bound action to grant permissions, subject to the Court’s guiding precedents and the need to ensure conformity with the KL U Order and related decisions.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep | 2015(1) KLT 984 | Positive | Cited to support that pre-Act conversions fall outside the Act’s scope, therefore allowing or guiding permission under KL U Order for such properties. |
| Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector | 2015(3) KLT 182 | Positive | Used to explain the scope of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in handling permissions. |
| Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2017(3) KLT 822 | Positive | Cited for its discussion on the power of the competent authority under KL U Order in grant of permissions. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma | 2015(2) KLT 516 | Positive | Referenced to illustrate timelines and procedural guidance for permissions and related actions. |
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 Seenath v. District Collector, Malappuram District and 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939**
**WP(C).No. 30441 of 2017 (E) ----------------------------**
**PETITIONER: -----------**
**SEENATH, D/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 26 YEARS, KOLOTHODI, KOMBAMKALLU, PATHRICODE PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
## **------------**
|**1.**|**DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,**|
|---|---|
||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679101.**|
|**2.**|**LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,**|
||**EDAPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,**|
||**AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDAPATTA.**|
|**3.**|**SUB COLLECTOR,**|
||**PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.**|
|**4.**|**VILLAGE OFFICER.**|
||**EDAPATTA, MALAPPURAM.**|
|**5.**|**EDAPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**|
||**EDAPATTA PO, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,**|
||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**|
**R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.34066/2017 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**mbr/**
## **WP(C).No. 30441 of 2017 (E) ----------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
- **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3166/15 DATED 26/6/2015 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA.**
- **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 25/1/2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 7/9/2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/5/2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER NO.EPT 22/16 DATED 15/3/2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER NO.2/17 DATED 28/4/2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/2/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 27.9.2017 GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBOURS.**
- **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR DELETION OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE DATA BANK DATED 3.11.2017 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.**
**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
**mbr/**
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
**================== W.P.(C).Nos.30441, 34066, 36490, 36606, 36611, 36660 & 36728 of 2017 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2017**
## **JUDGMENT**
The properties of the petitioners referred to in the writ petitions were though paddy fields originally, it is stated that the same have been converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since their properties are described as paddy land in the revenue records, they are unable to make use of the same for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the applications preferred by the petitioners therein for building permits are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 2 : and con. cases
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. In most of the writ petitions, the specific case of the petitioners is that their properties are shown as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. In the remaining writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that their properties are not shown as paddy land in the Data Banks. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. The applications preferred by the petitioners in this connection are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to grant permission sought for by them to make use of the properties for other purposes. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 3 : and con. cases
in the revenue records also. 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. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are mistakes in the draft and final Data Banks published under the Act and by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the Local Level Monitoring Committees are authorised to carry out appropriate corrections in the Data Banks. According to the learned Government Pleader, before granting permission sought for by the petitioners, it has to be ensured that the properties involved in these matters are not properties which are liable to be included in the Data Banks.
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 4 : and con. cases
4. 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). If the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra)_ and **Shivadasan** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** (2017(3) KLT 822), this Court has dealt with the scope of the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in dealing with the applications preferred for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy, by calling for reports
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 5 : and con. cases
from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, that the properties involved in these matters are converted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that the same are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. It is also directed that before forwarding the reports, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees shall, along with the Village Officers concerned, inspect the property with notice to the petitioners to satisfy the claim of the petitioners that the properties are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. For the said purpose, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees are free to call for the particulars of the properties from the petitioners including copies of the title deeds. The reports shall be called for by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the same shall be forwarded by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within one month thereafter. If favourable
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 6 : and con. cases
reports are received, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for permission to use their properties for other purposes in the light of the decisions of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra)_ and **Shivadasan** _(supra_ ), within one month from the date of receipt of the reports. 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 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 cases where they are parties to the writ petitions, in the light of
W.P.(c).Nos.30441 of 2017 : 7 : and con. cases
## **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**
SKS