High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-07Writ petition allowed; No costs; JCB to be rele...

Shakeer K.M. v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18338 of 2016 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-09-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is allowed. No costs. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on production of Ext. P3 data bank showing conversion of Re Survey Nos. 113/9 and 114/1-2 (15 and 20 years back). The District Collector is to effect release without any condition upon such production.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; No costs; JCB to be released on production of Ext P3 data bank evidence of conversion.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shakeer K.M.

Respondents

The District Collector, Pathanamthitta
Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Thiruvalla
Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla Circle Office, Pathanamthitt a
Agricultural Officer/ the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Niraman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri T.P. Pradeep
• Sri P.K. Sathees Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Saigy Jacobn Palattty

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shakeer K.M. challenges the seizure of a JCB excavator (registration KL-05-S-1254) on the ground that it was seized without a Mahazar and that he is the owner of the vehicle. The machine was reportedly parked on his brother’s property within two survey numbers, 113/9 and 114/1-2. Ext. P3 is an extract from the data bank, showing that the lands in these survey numbers have long been converted; however, the Sub Collector’s statement notes that the data bank records still describe 114/1-2 as reclaimed and that a mistake in the data bank does not preclude legal action. The judgment discusses the interplay between two statutes: the Kerala Wetland and Paddy Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) and the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order), with references to Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents. The Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep (2015) held that if a property is included in the Data Bank/Draft Data Bank as Paddy Land or Wetland and classified as Nilam, Act 28/2008 applies; otherwise, KLU Order governs. The Division Bench in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma (2015) also supported that conversion entries render Act 28/2008 inapplicable. In this case, Ext. P3 demonstrates conversion 15 and 20 years ago, so the vehicle must be released. The court directs the District Collector to release the JCB upon production of Ext. P3; writ petition allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Wetland and Paddy Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)Section 5(4) of Act 28 of 2008Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the seizure of his JCB was illegal since it was done without a Mahazar and without proper legal process. He asserts ownership and that the excavator was parked on his brother’s property, spanning two survey numbers (113/9 and 114/1-2). Ext. P3 indicates long-ago conversion; thus, under the Wetland Act, 2008 an action should not hinge on misclassified data. The petition relies on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents to argue that if land is not to be treated as Paddy Land/Wetland under the Data Bank, the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 governs and the vehicle should be released if conversion is proven.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Draft Data Bank shows 114/1-2 as reclaimed for more than 20 years though still described as Paddy land; a data bank mistake cannot preclude action. They rely on the Wetland Act, 2008 and its data bank provisions to justify seizure, and contend that the RDO’s interpretation of the statute was not correct. The government pleader notes that there is no reference to Resurvey No. 114/1-2 in the Data Bank, and argues that non-inclusion would indicate it is not Paddy land or Wetland; thus, the action may still be valid and governed by the relevant Act until clarified by the data bank.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC)	Positive	Cited to illustrate that if land is included in the Data Bank as Paddy Land/Wetland and Nilam, the provisions of Act 28/2008 apply; if not included, KLU Order governs.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma	2015 (3) KHC 19 (DB)	Positive	Division Bench held that when lands are converted and reflected as converted, the Wetland Act becomes inapplicable and KLU Order applies; supports the release in the present case.

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 Shakeer K.M. v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta & 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 18338 of 2016 (N) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **SHAKEER K.M.,** **S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, KALLIKKAL HOUSE, NIRANAM VADAKKUMBHAGOM P.O, THIRUVALLA, (OWNER OF JCB EXCAVATOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-05-S-1254)** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** **2. SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE NDIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.** **3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA CIRCLE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 101. 4. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/ THE CONVENER OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVN, NIRANAM - 689 621.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGY JACOBN PALATTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 18338 of 2016 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF JCB EXCAVATOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL 05 S 1254 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED IN NIRANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.28.12.2011 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZATTE DTD.24.3.2012. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: -----------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 18338 of 2016 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 07[th] day of September, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with the seizure of a JCB, allegedly without a Mahazar. The case of the petitioner is that the JCB is owned by the petitioner himself and it was parked in the petitioner's brothers property when the same was taken away. The petitioner admits that there are two properties lying contingiously owned by two brothers of his; one in Survey No.113/9 and other in 114/1-2. It is seen from Ext.P3 which is an extract of the notified draft data bank that both the properties are converted long back. 2. The Sub Collector has filed a statement, in which it has been stated that the Draft Data Bank though indicates the WPC.No.18338/2016 : 2 : land in Survey No.114/1-2 to be reclaimed prior to 20 years, the property is still lying as a paddy land. It is also stated that the mistake in the data bank would not preclude the authorities from taking a legal action. The understanding of the RDO as per the provisions of the statute is wrong. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC) Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep held so in Paragraph 18: If a property is included in the Data Bank or the Draft Data Bank prepared under the Wet Land Act, 2008 as a “Paddy Land” or “Wetland” and the classification of land is noted as “Nilam” in revenue records, the provision of the Act 28/2008 would apply. As noticed earlier, there is ample provision within the Act to grant permission for such land for residential purpose or public purpose as defined in the Act. And as elaborated earlier, if the property is not included in WPC.No.18338/2016 : 3 : the Data Bank as “Paddy Land” or “Wetland” as defined under Act 28/2008, it is still governed by the provision of KLU Order, 1967. Thus, State of Kerala has two Statutes - KLU Order, 1967 and Kerala Cultivation of Paddy Land ad Wetland Act, 2008 each dealing with delineated areas with respect to preservation, management and process of reclamation of agricultural and paddy land for any other legitimate use.” 3. A Division Bench of this Court also in 2015(3) KHC 19 (DB) ( Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma) also held in an identical manner in paragraph 8 which is extracted hereunder: “Insofar as this case is concerned, the admitted factual position is that though the lands of the respondents also were included in the draft data WPC.No.18338/2016 : 4 : bank prepared under Section 5(4) of Act 28 of 2008, on a consideration of Ext.P3 representation, the Local Level Monitoring Committee itself resolved to modify the entries in the draft data bank and the entry has been modified into converted land. This, therefore, means that, as a result of the above development, Act 28 of 2008 is rendered inapplicable to the lands owned by the respondents. In such a situation, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment mentioned above, automatically the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 would be applicable. Therefore, if the status of the lands are to be changed in the manner as sought for by the respondents they will necessarily have to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. WPC.No.18338/2016 : 5 : Going by the binding precedents only if the land is notified in the Data Bank or at least included, in the Draft Data Bank, as a 'Paddy Land” or 'Wetland' could there be a contention taken under the Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In the present case, there can be no such contention taken on the basis of the Data Bank and in such circumstance, the vehicle has only to be released to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the notified data bank before the District Collector and if it is indicated as in the extract produced in the writ petition, at Ext.P3, showing Re Survey No.113/9 and 114/1-2 having been converted, respectively 15 and 20 years back, the vehicle shall be released without any condition. The learned Government Pleader has a contention that there is no reference to Resurvey No. 114/1-2 in the Data Bank, which cannot be put against the petitioner; since if there is no inclusion of the land then it WPC.No.18338/2016 : 6 : would only indicate that it is not a 'Paddy land' or 'Wetland'. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge