High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of; directions issued f...

Sri Kevin Mathew & Asha T. Pulickal v Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha; Village Officer, Manjalloor; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Manjalloor; State of Kerala (W.P.(C).No. 8231 of 2015)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8231 of 2015 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2017-11-27
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of; petitioners permitted to file corrections in prescribed form before Local Level Monitoring Committees for Data Bank entries. Committees, after obtaining KSRSEC reports on the property status at the Act’s commencement, shall consider the corrections within three months. If corrections are allowed, petitioners may apply under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to use the properties for other purposes and to obtain building permits or numbers, with subsequent fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act as garden lands, in light of related precedents, within defined timeframes.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of; directions issued for Data Bank corrections and related permissions as described above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sri Kevin Mathew, S/o. George
  • Asha T. Pulickal, W/o. Kevin Mathew

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District-686661
  • Village Officer, Village Office, Manjalloor, Ernakulam District-686662
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee, Manjalloor, represented by its Chairman, President, Manjalloor Grama Panchayat, Manjalloor, Ernakulam District-686662
  • State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Rajan Joseph
  • • Sri Koshy George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri K. J. Manura j (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The batch of writ petitions challenges the inclusion of petitioners’ properties in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, despite the claim that those lands were converted from paddy to garden lands before the Act’s inception. Petitioners allege that this misclassification prevents them from using their properties for other purposes, including construction, and in some cases withholds building permits or building numbers. They seek correction of entries in the Data Bank and in revenue records, and some petitions request building permissions or numbers based on the corrected entries. The court recalls that if a property was converted prior to the Act, the Act may not apply, and LLMCs are empowered to rectify Data Bank mistakes. The judgment directs petitioners to file applications in prescribed form for corrections, to be considered by Local Level Monitoring Committees after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) regarding the property’s status at the Act’s commencement. If corrections are allowed, petitioners may pursue permissions under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to use properties for other purposes and to obtain building permits or numbers, with related tax reassessments where applicable, in light of related precedents.

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 their properties were converted into garden lands prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and should not have been included in the Data Bank. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue records, and in several petitions, building permits or building numbers. They request permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to use the lands for other purposes and to obtain permits, with a view to restoring lawful use and potential tax reassessment as garden lands.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that some applications for correction were not filed in the prescribed form and that, where needed, Local Level Monitoring Committees should process corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports. They note that the applicability of the Act to pre-conversion properties is a threshold issue for LLMCs to decide, and that permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and related processes must be followed, with orders issued within stipulated timelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveCited to support the proposition that properties converted before the Act may be exempt from its application; used to guide LLMCs’ initial consideration.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited to allow consideration of corrections under KLUO without being bound by Circular No. 46848/P1/2016.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited to frame timelines and considerations for restoration of garden land status and related permissions under KLUO.

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 Sri Kevin Mathew & Asha T. Pulickal v Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha; Village Officer, Manjalloor; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Manjalloor; State of Kerala (W.P.(C).No. 8231 of 2015) 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 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 8231 of 2015 (D)** **----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **1. SRI. KEVIN MATHEW, S/O.GEORGE, NIRAPEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. ASHA T.PULICKAL, W/O.KEVIN MATHEW, NIRAPEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH SRI.KOSHY GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **-----------------------------** **1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.** **2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 662.** **3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MANJALLOOR, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANJALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 662.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 37635 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** ## **WP(C).No. 8231 of 2015 (D)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJALLOOR DATED 12-08-2013 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** **EXT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.821/2013 OF THE KALLOORKADU SUB REGISTRY.** - **EXT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21-11-2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXT P4 : A TRUE COPY REPORT DATED 12-02-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-02-2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS.** **EXT P6 : PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LANDS IN SY.NO.134/17 AND NEARBY LANDS SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAND.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** **NIL** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.8231 & 37635 of 2015, 6330, 26623 & 40983 of 2016, 2348, 6739, 7081, 8637, 9479, 9514, 12725, 13263, 13462, 13700, 13949, 17318, 18047, 18352 & 34232 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** 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 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 WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 2 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. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of 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 WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 3 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 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 would 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 WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 4 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 some of the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank as referred to in the writ petition are not in the prescribed form. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form, wherever such applications are not filed, before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with copy of the judgment and the writ petition, 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 WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 5 properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if 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, in cases where applications in the prescribed form have already been filed, and within three months from the date of receipt of the applications, in other cases. 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 viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 6 the said purpose 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 Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the WPC 8231/15 & con. cases 7 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