High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of

Sureshbabu P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:25652

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2025-03-25
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 application and to change the description of the property in the revenue records under Section 27(C) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, within one month from the copy of the judgment; the petitioner is held entitled to the consequential benefits of Ext.P3.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sureshbabu P.S.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam
  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District
  • Tahsildar (Land Records), MuvATTUPuzha, Taluk Office Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District
  • Village Officer, Palakuzha, Palakuzha Village Office, Palakuzha P.O., Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. D. Subramanian Nampoothiri
  • • Divya C Balan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Preetha K.K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sureshbabu P.S., owner in possession of 2.83 acres in Palakuzha Village, Muvattupuzha taluk, seeks relief to secure the consequences of Ext.P3 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and to have revenue records corrected under Section 27(C). The property, surveyed in 265/3-6, was purchased by the petitioner by Ext.P1 on 10 February 2022. Earlier, the predecessor in interest filed Form 6 on 13 December 2021; Ext.P3, issued 1 April 2022, found that the land did not fall within the definition of paddy land or wetland and was reclaimed prior to 12 August 2008, allowing conversion. The property was subsequently purchased; the petitioner then sought to change the assessment by filing Ext.P4, but a notice Ext.P5 claimed the property was included in the Data Bank, leading to the Form 6 application being declined. The petitioner argues that Ext.P3 was the result of statutory power and that its benefit should extend to him as the successor in interest, who steps into the shoes of the predecessor; denying this would violate the subsequent rights. The respondents contend Data Bank inclusion and that Ext.P3 cannot be withdrawn by the 3rd respondent. The court concludes Ext.P3 contains a binding finding and cannot be reversed; it disposes by directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 and amend revenue records under Sec 27(C) within one month, upholding the consequential benefits of Ext.P3. It also notes that the 3rd respondent cannot review Ext.P3, and the Data Bank entry should not override the order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 27(C) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Doctrine of succession in interest / purchaser steps into the shoes of the predecessor in interest; rights and liabilities attach to the transferee.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P3, though issued in favour of the predecessor, creates a binding conversion benefit; having purchased the land under Ext.P1, he steps into the shoes of the predecessor and is entitled to the same rights and remedies, including the consequential benefits of Ext.P3. He seeks mandamus to have Ext.P4 considered within a fixed timeframe and to correct revenue records under Section 27(C). He argues that the Data Bank entry cannot defeat Ext.P3, and the 4th respondent should be directed to process Ext.P4 within a fixed time.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the Data Bank inclusion of the property and contend that Form 6 cannot be entertained; Ext.P3 cannot be withdrawn or revised by the 3rd respondent, and Data Bank listings could have legal consequences. They argue that the order was issued under statutory powers and cannot be arbitrarily negated.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
M. K. Somasekhara Panicker v. State of Kerala2024 (1) KHC 18PositiveCited to support the proposition that a purchaser steps into the shoes of the predecessor in interest and inherits rights and liabilities; Ext.P3's binding effect is recognized as settled by the Court in the cited judgment.

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 Sureshbabu P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.` ``` TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER(S):` ``` SURESHBABU P.S., AGED 45 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, GEORGE STREET, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686631. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI DIVYA C BALAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT( S ) :` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030. 3REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686661. ``` - `4 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),MUVATTUPUZHA, TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686661.` - `5 VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKUZHA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, PLAKUZHA P O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM,, PIN – 686662.` ``` SMT.PREETHA K.K, SR.G.P ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` - `25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:` ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.83 Ares of property comprised in the Survey No.265/3-6 of Palakuzha Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. The said property was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 10.02.2022. 2. Earlier, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 before the 3[rd] respondent, as early as on 13.12.2021. The said application was submitted in view of the fact that, the property was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, eventhough the same was not included in the Data Bank. The said application was considered by the 3[rd] respondent and it resulted in Ext.P3, by which, the same was allowed. In Ext.P3 order, a specific finding was entered into, to the effect that the property owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the property was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008. ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 3. Ext.P3 order was passed after being convinced of the said fact, by permitting the petitioner to reclaim the said land. In the meantime, the petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 document. Therefore, being the owner and occupant of the property, and the person competent to enjoy the benefits as per Ext.P3 order, he submitted an application before the Tahasildar (Land Records), the 4th respondent herein for changing the assessment of property. However, while processing the said application, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner on the reason that, the property was included in the Data Bank, and therefore, the Form 6 application was declined. In these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction or to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 application within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, order or direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents’ extent the order of conversion of property in favour of the Petitioner which is confirmed already on the erstwhile owners of the property as per Exhibit P3 order. ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** iii. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case”. 4. I have heard Sri.P.D.Subrahmanian Nampoothiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K., learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether it is justifiable on the part of the respondents to deny the benefits of Ext.P3 order, passed by the 3[rd] respondent on the application submitted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in Form 6. It is true that, in the subsequent notices, it is stated that the property is included in the Data Bank and, therefore, the Form 6 application cannot be considered. 6. However, the crucial aspect to be noted in this regard is that, in Ext.P3, a specific finding was entered into by the 3[rd] respondent to the effect that the property does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, and that it was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008. Since it is an order passed ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** in exercise of the statutory powers vested upon the 3[rd] respondent, the same cannot be ignored, while processing the application submitted by the petitioner for the consequential benefits of the said application. 7. It is true that Ext.P3 order was passed in favor of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, but that would not preclude the petitioner from enjoying the benefits of the same. This is because, by virtue of the purchase of the said property by following the legal procedure contemplated in this regard, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, and therefore, all the rights and liabilities attached with the property are available and applicable to the petitioner. The possession of law in this regard is already settled by this Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment namely _**Somasekhara Panicker M.K. v. State of Kerala 2024 (1) KHC 18**_ . 8. Of course, it is stated in the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent that, while processing the application submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P4, it was noticed that the property was included in the Data Bank. The learned ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Government Pleader also asserted that, as per the report of the Village Officer, the survey number of the property was included in the Data Bank. 9. However, as observed above, Ext.P3 order was passed by the 3[rd] respondent, with a specific finding that the property is not a paddy land or wet land and it is reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Therefore, the said order cannot be withdrawn or revised, by the 3rd respondent, as he does not have the power to review the said order. 10. Therefore, under no circumstances can any order nullifying Ext.P3 order be passed by the 3rd respondent or any authority subordinate to him. Even if the said property is included in the Data Bank, the same has to be removed by the authorities concerned, or the same cannot have any consequences in the light of Ext.P3 order, which is passed as early as on 01.04.2022. 11. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential benefits of Ext.P3. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** consider the Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner and change the description of the property in the revenue records as contemplated under Section 27(C) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which involves Ext.P5. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** mea ``` 2025:KER:25652 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36928/2024` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1` - `TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 226/2022, DATED 10/02/2022 OF SUB REGISTRY KOOTHATTUKULAM` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.KL07070402521/2024, DATED 08/05/2024` - `Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A14880/2022/R-DIS, DATED 01.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS` - `Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/08/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A14/889/2024/L-DIS, DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/09/2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN M. K. SOMASEKHARA PANICKER, & OTHERS. V STATE OF KERALA, (2024 (1) KHC 18)`