High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-28Disposed of by directing LLMCs to consider and ...

Sulfeekker Ali. M v. Local Level Monitoring Committee and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 37735 of 2017 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of by directing Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and decide applications for correction of the Data Bank after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) regarding the position at the time of commencement of the Act, with the petitioners paying the prescribed fees if directed. If the LLMCs’ corrections enable entitlement, the competent authorities shall grant building permits or numbers as applicable, and shall process such relief within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If petitions seek relief under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, the competent authority shall decide within one month from the LLMC decision, in light of Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, and, where granted, the land may be used for other purposes subject to fresh assessment, as appropriate.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by directing LLMCs to consider and decide corrections to the Data Bank after obtaining KSRSEC reports; if allowed, to issue permits or numbers; three-month compliance window; Clause 6 relief to be decided within one month from LLMC decision, with fresh assessments if required.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sulfeekker Ali. M

Respondents

Local Level Monitoring Committee, Palakkad District (represented by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Peruvembu)
Village Officer, Peruvembu Village
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Peruvembu
District Collector, Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. K. I. Sageer

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader K. J. Manuraj

Case Synopsis & Summary

These batch writ petitions challenge entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for lands that were paddy lands converted to garden lands before the Act’s introduction. The petitioners contend that despite pre‑Act conversion, their lands were included in the Data Bank, restricting construction, building permissions, and land use. They seek corrections to Data Bank entries and to revenue records, and, where applicable, building permits or building numbers. The Court notes that Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) have the power to correct the Data Bank, and holds that pre‑Act status may exempt properties from the Act’s provisions, subject to verification. It relies on Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep to support the proposition that conversion prior to the Act may negate applicability, and also cites Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma to authorize permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and to require timely consideration. The Court directs LLMCs to consider applications for Data Bank corrections after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position at the Act’s commencement, with the requisite fees if directed, and to issue permits or numbers if otherwise entitled, within three months. If requests under Clause 6 are granted, fresh permissions and reassessments shall be processed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that their properties were originally paddy lands and converted to garden lands long before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Despite pre‑Act conversion, the Data Bank includes their lands, obstructing construction, building permissions, and land use. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue records, and, where applicable, building permits or numbers. They contend that pre‑Act conversion should exempt the properties from the Act’s prohibitions, and that LLMCs have authority to amend the Data Bank after obtaining reports from KSRSEC. They also urge permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and request expedited decisions, including fresh assessments if needed, with prompt processing by the authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that LLMCs determine Data Bank corrections and that changes must be supported by evidence. They emphasise that the Act applies unless pre‑Act conversion is established and that building permissions depend on compliance with statutory provisions. They rely on the LLMC process, require objective verification via KSRSEC reports, and advocate timely consideration under the Act’s framework, without bypassing due process or statutory guidelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that properties converted prior to the Act may not be subject to its provisions.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited to justify permission to use land under the Kerala Land Utilization Order upon compliance.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to reflect timely consideration and processing of permissions under the relevant order.

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 Sulfeekker Ali. M v. Local Level Monitoring Committee 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** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2017 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **SULFEEKKER ALI. M, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.A. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, SULFEEKKER MANZIL, NAVAKKOD, KODUVAYOOR. P.O-678 501, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER.** - **RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------1. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVEMBU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 531.** - **2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVEMBU VILLAGE, PERUVEMBU-678 531.** - **3. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVEMBA-678 531.** - **4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD.** **BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MANURAJ.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.38164 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2017 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2622/2014 OF SRO, KODUVAYOOR DATED 17-12-2014 IN RESPECT OF 0.081 HECTORS OF LAND IN R.SY. NO.305/1 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN DATA BANK REGISTER PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PERUVEMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 12.07.2017.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND NOORMUHAMMED.A DATED 12.05.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED. 11.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2017.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.37735, 38164, 38177, 38202 & 38206 of 2017** **--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** 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 W.P.(c).No.37735/17 & con. cases : 2 : the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in 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. The petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Banks 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 W.P.(c).No.37735/17 & con. cases : 3 : revenue records. 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. 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, W.P.(c).No.37735/17 & con. cases : 4 : they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the 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 the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said W.P.(c).No.37735/17 & con. cases : 5 : reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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 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 W.P.(c).No.37735/17 & con. cases : 6 : 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 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