High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-02-18Writ Appeal dismissed.

State of Kerala vs K.P. Kasim

Case / Petition Number:WA No.1390/2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2015-02-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s direction to mutate the property and alter its classification in revenue records, noting that the material on record suggested the land was not paddy land and that Jalaja Dileep v. R.D.O supports altering classification where justified by evidence. The State’s challenge to Ext. P7 was not upheld.
Final Disposition: Writ Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001

Respondents

K.P. Kasim S/o. K.K. Pareed, Kaniyampala House Thodupuzha East P.O., Idukki District-685 584

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri C.S. Manilal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Lal K. Joseph
• Sri A.A. Ziyad Rahman
• Sri V.S. Shiraz Bava

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ appeal filed by the State challenging the Kerala High Court’s judgment in WP(C) 24301/2012, dated 04 January 2013, which directed mutation of a land record and a change in classification of a property from nilam to purayidam. The petitioner, K.P. Kasim, had claimed the property acquired by sale (Ext. P1) should be mutated in revenue records and reclassified, contending it lay as garden land though recorded as nilam. Ext. P7 by the Revenue authorities refused mutation on the ground that the land had been reclaimed in violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and thus no change in classification could be effected. Earlier, a 2012 judgment in W.P.C. 16911/2012 directed authorities to consider the mutation application and decide within a month; this led to Ext. P7. The State contends Ext. P7 was never challenged and argues that the petitioner initially sought mutation and later sought reclassification via Ext. P6, which Ext. P7 rejected. It relies on Jalaja Dileep v. R.D.O (2012(3) KLT 333) to urge reconsideration, arguing that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in an appeal. The respondents support the trial court’s order and obtained permission to amend the writ petition to challenge Ext. P7. The court ultimately held that there was factual basis to permit mutation and reclassification, relying on Jalaja Dileep’s rationale, and dismissed the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008Transfer of Registry Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that Ext.P7 order, refusing mutation on the ground of violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, is valid and should not be reopened. It submits that mutation and change of classification are contingent on compliance with statutory procedures under the Transfer of Registry Rules, and that Jalaja Dileep v. R.D.O (2012(3) KLT 333) requires re-evaluation of facts only if material indicates the property is not paddy land; thus disputed questions of fact should be left to be resolved at appropriate stages. The State emphasizes that the petition originally sought mutation; subsequent Ext. P6 for reclassification was rejected, and Ext. P7 cannot be faulted without reconsideration of the factual record.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Single Judge correctly directed mutation and reclassification based on the materials on record (Ext. P4 report showing the property as dry land, presence of a building, and rubber trees). They argue the law allows such change where the factual matrix demonstrates the land is not paddy land, as recognized in Jalaja Dileep. They maintain that mutation must be effected after compliance with Transfer of Registry Rules and that the amendment to include challenge to Ext. P7 was rightly allowed. They oppose the State’s contention that the matter involves undisputed facts and emphasize that the court should and did assess the evidence to determine the appropriate entries in revenue records.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jalaja Dileep v. R.D.O	2012(3) KLT 333	Positive	The court relied on this precedent to support mutation and reclassification when materials indicate the land is not paddy land, validating changes in classification and mutation in revenue records.

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 State of Kerala vs K.P. Kasim 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 THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/29TH MAGHA, 1936 WA.No. 1390 of 2013 () IN WP(C).24301/2012 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24301/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-01-2013 APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC : ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-678 701. 3. THE TAHSILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 107. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 670. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC : ------------------------------------------------ K.P.KASIM S/O. K.K.PAREED, KANIYAMPALA HOUSE THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.1390 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Shaffique,J** This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 04/01/2013 in W.P.C.No.24301/2012. The writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to effect mutation of the property belonging to the petitioner and for correcting the classification of the land in Basic Tax Register as 'purayidam' in the place of 'nilam'. In Ext.P7 order, the revenue authorities formed an opinion that since the property was reclaimed violating the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, no such change in classification could be made. Mutation also was rejected. 2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that the petitioner acquired certain item of property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 10/04/2012. According to the petitioner, W.A.No.1390/2013 2 the property was lying as garden land, but the revenue records indicated that the property was classified as 'nilam'. Petitioner applied for mutation, which was rejected, against which he approached this Court. By judgment dated 20/07/2012 in W.P.C.No.16911/2012, this Court directed the revenue authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same within one month. It is, pursuant to the said direction, that Ext.P7 order was enforced. The learned Single Judge, having considered the relevant issues, directed the revenue authorities to mutate the property in favour of the petitioner and make necessary change in classification as well. Ext.P7 order was set aside. 3. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P7 order was never under challenge. That apart, initially, petitioner's request was only for effecting mutation and later petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application for change in classification which was rejected in terms of Ext.P7. It is argued that **Jalaja Dileep v. R.D.O** _[2012(3) KLT 333]_ which was relied W.A.No.1390/2013 3 upon by the learned Single Judge requires reconsideration as the High Court cannot decide on disputed questions of fact. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner supports the judgment. He has also filed I.A.No.83/2014 to amend the writ petition to incorporate a prayer challenging Ext.P7. Though it was argued by the learned Government Pleader that the amendment application cannot be allowed as there is no provision enabling such amendment at the appellate stage, by a separate order, we have already allowed the amendment. 5. The short question to be considered in this writ petition is whether there is any justification on the part of the revenue authorities in rejecting the mutation as well as request for change in classification in the revenue records. It is not in dispute that as on the date on which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force, the property was already converted. It is fairly submitted that this property is not included in the data bank W.A.No.1390/2013 4 prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Under such circumstances, it has to be assumed that at least, as on the date of coming into force of Act 2008, the property was not a paddy land. In **Jalaja Dileep** 's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had come to the conclusion that if the factual materials available indicate that the property was not paddy land, it shall be open for the revenue authorities to change the classification of the land taking into consideration the actual state of affairs. It is, based on such materials, that the learned Single Judge had formed an opinion that necessary change in classification could be made. Reference has been made to Ext.P4 report submitted by the revenue authorities, wherein it is stated that the property is lying as dry land. It is also indicated that a building bearing No.VI/320 having an area of 1200 sq.feet is situated in the property and there are rubber trees having an age of 20 years in the property. This material itself indicates the nature of property and therefore relying upon the judgment in **Jalaja Dileep** 's case (supra), the learned W.A.No.1390/2013 5 Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and directing change in classification as well as change in mutation entries. In fact, as far as mutation is concerned, the revenue authorities are bound to effect mutation after complying with the procedure prescribed under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The request for change of classification cannot stand in the way of change to be made in the mutation entries depending upon the documents produced by the parties concerned. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly this writ appeal is dismissed. (sd/-) **(ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)** (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.A.No.1390/2013 6 W.A.No.1390/2013 7 W.A.No.1390/2013 8