High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions dire...
Thankam v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 23554 of 2016 (T)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2017-10-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioners to file applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) for correction of Data Bank entries. If filed with a copy of the judgment, those applications shall be considered after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) about the property status at the time of the Act’s commencement, with petitioners paying the KSRSEC prescribed fees. Where reports have already been sought, orders may be based on those reports. The Court directs that the above compliance be achieved within three months. If the LLMCs allow the requests, petitioners may invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to seek permission to use the lands for other purposes and, if such permissions are granted, they shall be issued building permits or building numbers by the concerned authorities. Petitioners may also move authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of lands as garden lands, with a one-month timeframe from the respective requests, guided by the decision in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of with directions directing LLMCs to accept prescribed-form applications for correction of Data Bank entries, require KSRSEC reports and copy of judgment, and provide for Clause 6 procedures if permitted, with time-bound compliance (three months for initial steps; further one-month/one-month-like timelines for subsequent actions) and related building permits/numbers and tax reassessment provisions, as described in the judgment.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Thankam
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Local Level Monitoring Committee
- Manjeri Municipality
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Gokul Das V.V.H.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Raji T. Bhaskar
- • K. Shibili Naha
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of writ petitions concerns entries in the Data Bank established under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Wetland Act) for lands that were Paddy lands converted to garden lands years before the Act. The petitioners allege that post-conversion entries in the Data Bank prevent them from using the properties for other purposes, including construction or securing building permits, and seek correction of those entries and related revenue-record adjustments. They argue that since the conversions occurred prior to the Act, the Act should not apply to their properties, and they request LLMCs to rectify the Data Bank entries and permit permissible uses subject to the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO). The court notes that if properties were converted before the Act, the Act would not apply to them, relying on Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, but emphasises that the question of conversion status is to be determined by LLMCs first, which have authority to correct Data Bank entries. It also cites Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector to indicate that, where applicable, permission under KLUO can enable uses of the land. The court directs the petitioners to file prescribed-form applications before LLMCs, obtain KSRSEC reports, pay the required fees, and, if relief is granted, pursue Clause 6 of the KLUO for permission to use the land for other purposes, including building permits and numbers, with time-bound directions for compliance.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Wetland Act, 2008)Kerala 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 originally paddy lands converted to garden lands well before the Wetland Act, and that the Data Bank entries include these lands despite pre-act conversion. They seek correction of Data Bank entries so that the lands can be used for permissible purposes, including construction, upon obtaining proper permissions. They urge LLMCs to correct the records and, if necessary, to allow remedies under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6) with appropriate approvals and building permissions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that corrections to Data Bank entries must follow prescribed procedures and forms, and that determination of whether conversion occurred prior to the Act should be assessed initially by LLMCs. The Government Pleader also notes that the applications were not in prescribed form, and stresses the need to rely on existing statutory processes and reports (e.g., from KSRSEC) before any orders can be issued. They emphasize caution and compliance with procedural requirements.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Divisional Officer v Jalaja Dileep | 2015(1) KLT 984 | Positive | Cited as authority that lands converted prior to the Wetland Act may not come under the Act. |
| Puthan Purakkal Joseph v Sub Collector | 2015(3) KLT 182 | Mentioned Only | Cited to corroborate that permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order may be required to use land for other purposes, but not a direct holding on the current dispute. |
| Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma | 2015(2) KLT 516 | Positive | Cited to support time-bound consideration for fresh tax reassessment or related permissions under statutory frameworks. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Thankam 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.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939**
## **WP(C).No. 23554 of 2016 (T)**
**----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER :**
**---------------------**
**THANKAM,AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.KUNJUKUTTY, PALLICKATHODI HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM WEST P.O., NARUKARA VILLAGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 123.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.**
**RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001.**
**2. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 121.**
**3. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN : 676 121.**
## **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR R3 BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC,**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 23555/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**sts**
## **WP(C).No. 23554 of 2016 (T)**
## **-----------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**---------------------------------------**
- **P1 PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS.) DEPICTING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES**
- **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, MANJERI.**
- **P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/3/2016 BEARING NUMBER E3-17324/15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**
- **P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MANJERI.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL**
**-------------------------------------------**
## **/TRUE COPY/**
## **P.A.TO JUDGE**
**sts**
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
**==================**
**W.P.(C.) Nos.23554, 23555, 23557 & 35330 of 2016**
**&**
**W.P.(C.) Nos.1950, 2725, 6490, 6740, 6745, 9520, 10931, 10970, 10984, 10987, 11518, 11801, 11963, 12022, 12593, 12785, 12813, 12896, 12901, 18668, 19942, 21555, 24926, 25221 & 27067 of 2017**
**--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 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
**2**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
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 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, therefore, preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records and in some cases, receipts
**3**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
evidencing submission of applications 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 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
**4**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
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 do 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 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 the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank are not in the prescribed form.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the
**5**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
Data Bank in relation to the properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with a copy of the judgment, 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 properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report as and when 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. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization
**6**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
Order before the competent authority for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in case applications have not been preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose by now 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,
**7**
**W.P.(C.) No. 23554/2016 & con. cases**
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/-
SKS
**P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE**
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE