High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-17Petition allowed in part; Ext.P6 quashed; LLMC ...

Shiju Chacko v. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam; District Level Authorized Committee, by its Chairman, the District Collector, Collectorate, Kuylimala, Painav P.O., Idukki

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019(Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is partially allowed. Ext.P6 is set aside. The 2nd respondent LLMC is directed to consider the petitioner’s application in terms of the observations, conclusions and directions in Yousuf Chalil (Supra) and to make recommendations to the 3rd respondent-DLAC as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. On receipt of the recommendations, the 3rd respondent-DLAC shall issue final orders on the application within a further period of one month thereafter.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed in part; Ext.P6 quashed; LLMC to reconsider the application under the framework laid down in Yousuf Chalil (540) with clean-hands requirement; DLAC to issue final orders within a further period after recommendations.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shiju Chacko

Respondents

Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam
District Level Authorized Committee, by its Chairman, the District Collector, Collectorate, Kuylimala, Painav P.O., Idukki

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Ananthakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rajasekharan Nair, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition challenges Ext.P6, the rejection of the petitioner’s application for permission to construct a residential building on 10 cents of Re.Sy.No.340/2 in Karimkunnam Village. The Agricultural Officer refused the permit on the ground that the property was purchased after the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act (Paddy Land Act) came into force, and thus no benefit under Section 9 could be granted. The petitioner contends that a learned Single Judge’s decision in Shivadasan M.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others (2017) 4 KHC 191, relied upon to deny relief, has been effectively altered by later authority—most notably Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala (2019 (4) KLT 33) which was reversed by the Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala (2019 (4) KLT 540)—so there is no express prohibition in the Act against assignees or purchasers post-enactment receiving benefits under Section 9 on merits. The respondent contends the earlier position stands and that the petition should be dismissed. The Court, examining Yousuf Chalil (Supra) and the caveats introduced therein, holds that the Division Bench has clarified that applications must be considered on merits with safeguards to prevent misuse. Consequently, Ext.P6 is set aside and the LLMC is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application following the Yousuf Chalil framework, and to make recommendations to the DLAC expeditiously, not later than two months from receipt of this judgment; final orders will follow within one month after the recommendations are received. The court emphasizes clean hands and proper use of the Paddy Land Act’s relief provisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (Paddy Land Act)Section 9Section 9(1)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Clean hands doctrine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is entitled to consideration under Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act notwithstanding his post Act purchase of the property. He relies on Yousuf Chalil (540) to argue that there is no express bar and that the DLAC must evaluate the merits; he urges that Ext.P6 wrongly denied relief simply on the post-enactment purchase. He further argues that the court should compel reconsideration per the directive in Yousuf Chalil (Supra).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that the Paddy Land Act’s objective is to aid deserving persons and not exploit post-act purchases; they emphasize that Shivadasan M.K. (2017) 4 KHC 191 has not been reversed in a manner that would render Ext.P6 illegal, but that the application should be reconsidered only upon the competent authorities’ assessment. They urge dismissal of the petition if the authorities conclude against grant of relief, maintaining the prior jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shivadasan M.K. and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others	2017(4)KHC 191	Overruled	Yousuf Chalil (540) has altered the position by holding no express prohibition against grant of Section 9 benefits to post-act purchasers and requiring merit-based consideration.
Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala	2019 (4) KLT 33	Overruled	The 33 case was reversed by the Division Bench in 540; hence it is not good law for the present context.
Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala	2019 (4) KLT 540	Positive	The 540 decision is relied upon as the controlling authority, guiding merits-based reconsideration and safeguards.
Decision in W.A.No.2073 of 2019	W.A.No.2073 of 2019	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P7; cited as a decision in a writ appeal but not central to the core reasoning here.

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 Shiju Chacko v. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishi Bhavan, Karinkunnam; District Level Authorized Committee, by its Chairman, the District Collector, Collectorate, Kuylimala, Painav P.O., Idukki 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHIJU CHACKO AGED 47 YEARS S/O CHACKO,RESIDING AT CHAVARATTU HOUSE,KARINKUNNAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA-685586.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN,KARINKUNNAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA-685586.** - **2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN,KARINKUNNAM.P.O,THODUPUZHA685586,REP.BY ITS CONVENOR.** - **3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,KUYLIMALA,PAINAV.P.O, IDUKKI-685603.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **(Dated this the 17th day of December, 2019)** The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent Agricultural Officer, as per which his application for permission to construct a residential building in 10 cents of his property comprised of Re.Sy.No.340/2 of Karimkunnam Village has been rejected merely saying that since the petitioner has purchased the said property after the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred as the “Paddy Land Act” for short); came into force no such permission can be granted, since it has been declared by a learned Judge of this Court in _**Shivadasan M.K. and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others [2017(4)KHC**_ **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **3** _**191]**_ that the purchase of the property subsequent to the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act cannot be grant the benefit under Section 9 thereof. 2. The petitioner says that the afore mentioned judgment of the learned Single Judge was relied upon by another learned Judge in _**Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala**_ _**[2019 (4) KLT 33]**_ , but that this judgment has been reversed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in _**Yousuf Chalil v. State of**_ _**Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 540]**_ . The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and the 1[st] respondent-Agricultural Officer be directed to reconsider his application adding that he is confining such benefit for 10 cents and not for 11.6 Ares as has been prayed for. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **4** -Sri.Rajasekharan Nair submitted that the assertions of the petitioner as afore are not accurate, since the learned Division Bench has not reversed the judgments of the learned single benches, but has only directed that the application of the petitioner therein be reconsidered based on the recommendations of the competent Authorities. He says that the position of the law, as declared by the learned single judge, may not be disturbed, since the intent of the Paddy Land Act is only to give benefit to a deserving person and not to a person who purchased the property subsequently with the intent of exploiting it under the guise of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act. The learned Senior Government Pleader, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. When I see the dialectical nature of the contentions of the parties as afore **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **5** recorded, it becomes enjoined on me to first consider the impact of _**Yousuf Chalil**_ ## _**(Supra.**_ 5. When one reads _**Yousuf Chalil (Supra)**_ very closely there is no doubt that the learned Division Bench has found that there is no express prohibition contained in the Act against an assignee from being granted the benefit under Section 9(1) of the Paddy Land Act and therefore, that it is for the statutory Authorities to consider such applications on a case-to-case basis, after assessing the merits of the request of the applicant. Obviously, therefore, as rightly stated by Sri.S.Ananthakrishnan- learned counsel for the petitioner, the position of law, as settled in _**Shivadasan M.K. (Supra),**_ has been altered by a learned Division Bench in _**Yousuf Chalil (Supra)**_ and it now becomes incumbent upon the District Level Authorized **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **6** Committee (DLAC for short) to consider every application on its merits, rather than reject them merely because the owner purchased the property after the Paddy Land Act came into force. 6. That said, the Division Bench has in _**Yousuf Chalil (Supra),**_ imposed certain caveats in the power of the DLAC, so as to ensure that the provisions of law are not misused by unscrupulous persons who purchased properties subsequent to the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act and that such applications be considered very carefully by ensuring that the applicant has approached with clean hands; that the construction purposed is for his own use and not for other collateral purposes- including commercial exploitation. 7. Thus, matters now stand, consequent **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **7** to the declaration of law by the learned Division Bench in _**Yousuf Chalil (Supra)**_ , it is for the LLMC to consider the application of the petitioner at the first instance, ensuring that there is no misuse of the provisions of law, leading to appropriate recommendations to be made to the DLAC, so as to finally culminate in a final order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, I set aside Ext.P6 and consequentially, direct the 2[nd] respondentLLMC to consider the application of the petitioner specifically in terms of the observations, conclusions and directions in _**Yousuf Chalil (Supra)**_ and make their recommendations to the 3[rd] respondent-DLAC as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the said recommendations by the 3[rd] respondent-DLAC, **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** they will issue final orders on the application of the petitioner within a further period of one month thereafter. **==> picture [325 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [325 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** AJM **WP(C).No.33800 OF 2019** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.1371/15 DT.17.7.2015.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.1.8.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.10.8.2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.18.9.2019.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION COMMUNICATION DT.5.11.2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN W.A.NO.2073 OF 2019.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**