Vijaya Kumari P.V. v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-08-29
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijaya Kumari P.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tower, Kottayam
Village Officer, Muttambalam Village, Kottayam
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath represented by Convener, Agriculture Office, Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Gikku Jacob

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader SMT. Raji T. Bhaskar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners challenge the classification and treatment of a 22-cent land parcel in Muttambalam Village (Vijayapuram) on multiple survey numbers. They assert that, although the data bank marks the land as karabhumi converted roughly a decade ago, revenue records describe it as nilam, and two buildings on the property are evident from the title deeds and building Tax receipts. The petitioners have paid building tax in 1984, and Exts. P1–P4, P3 show past occupancy and possession; early and ongoing tenancy/Sale records support their claim that there were structures on the land. They filed Exts. P5 and P6 under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order). The Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to inspect and file reports and to obtain KSREC data. The LLMC/KSREC reports indicate the land’s data-bank status as karabhoomi/ nilam with a house and vegetation pattern evolving over time, including 1967–2016 data. Circular No. 994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD (22.12.2016) allows construction on nilam properties if a valid permit exists. In Shivadasan v. RDO (2017) 3 KLT 822, the court held that when a property is not in the data bank, the RDO must consider Clause (6) KLU Order applications. Consequently, the Court directs the RDO to process Exts. P5–P6 within one month, after certifying reports from LLMC/KSREC, and the petitions are allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Circular No. 994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD dated 22.12.2016

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the subject land is described as 'nilam' in revenue records while the data bank marks it as 'karabhumi' converted about 10 years prior. Despite this, there are built structures on the land evidenced by title (Exts. P1) and building tax receipts (Exts. P2, P3). They have filed Exts. P5 and P6 under Clause (6) of the KLU Order. The LLMC and KSREC reports show land-use changes and a dwelling on the property; they rely on Circular No. 994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD permitting construction in nilam with valid permits. The Supreme precedent from Shivadasan v. RDO (2017) 3 KLT 822 is invoked, holding that where data bank absence exists, the RDO must consider Clause (6) KLU applications. The Court is urged to direct the RDO to consider Exts. P5–P6 and to obtain certified reports within a month.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide a separate, explicit respondent argument; the judgment focuses on the petitioners’ contentions, the LLMC/KSREC reports, and the applicability of the KLU Order and circulars to permit construction where valid permits exist. The court ultimately analyzes these records and directs the RDO to proceed under Clause (6) KLU Order.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2017 (3) KLT 822	Positive	Cited to support that when a property is not included in the data bank, the RDO must consider applications filed under Clause (6) of the KLU Order.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/7TH BHADRA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 2808 of 2017 (A) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** **VIJAYA KUMARI P.V.** **AGED 70 YEARS W/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, MANGANAM PO., KOTTAYAM** **BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER REVENUE TOWER, KOTTAYAM** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM** **4. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. REPRESENTED BY CONVENER. AGRICULTURE OFFICE, VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTTAYAM** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-08-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 2846/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 2808 of 2017 (A)** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.12.1976 REGSTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.3196/76 OF ADDITIONAL S.R.O. KOTTAYAM** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 1989** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.1.2016 ISSUED FROM THE MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTAMBALAM** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846 of 2017 -----------------------------------------Dated: 29[th] August, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are concerned with 22 cents of property in various survey numbers in Muttambalam Village (earlier in Vijayapuram Village). The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2808/2017 purchased the above 22 cents; of which 5 cents is comprised in Survey No.158/4B/2, 15 cents in Survey No.276/4 and 2 cents is Survey No.158/4A/1 in the aforesaid village. Out of this, 9 cents in Survey No.87/11 of Muttambalam village was settled on her husband, on whose death it devolved on her son, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2846/2017. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the fact that though the subject land is described in the data bank as 'karabhumi converted 10 years back', the same ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846/2017** **-2-** is described as 'nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioners' further contention is that there were two buildings existing in the said properties which is seen from Ext.P1 title deed of the mother. The petitioner has also been paying building tax, which is evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt, of 1984, produced in W.P.(C) No.2808/2017. The other building, existing in the 9 cents, was also assessed to tax, for which tax was paid as per Ext.P3, produced in W.P.(C) No.2846/2017, of the year 1984. 3. The possession certificate issued and the land tax receipts indicate the property to be a 'nilam', which is the description as per the revenue records. The petitioners also has filed Exts.P5 and P6 applications, produced respectively in W.P.(C) Nos. 2808/2017 and 2846/2017, which are under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 ('KLU Order' for short). ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846/2017** **-3-** This Court had directed the Local Level Monitoring committee (LLMC) to inspect the property and file a report and also obtain a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center (KSREC). The same have been produced in both the writ petitions along with memo dated 22.07.2017. 4. The report in W.P.(C) No.2808/2017 filed by the LLMC shows that the property was inspected in the presence of the Village Officer. The data bank shows it to be converted as 'karabhoomi' approximately before 10 years as on 08.09.2010. It is also reported that a house is existing in the property with standing trees of more than 30 years. The report in W.P.(C) No. 2846/2017 is identical to that filed in W.P.(C) No.2808/2017. The report on Land Use Change examines the properties in Survey No.87/10 and 87/11. Survey No.87/10, which property is the subject matter ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846/2017** **-4-** of W.P.(C) 2808/2017 is observed from the topo sheet of 1967 as being under paddy cultivation. However, in the year 2004 there are buildings/structures at the centre with vegetation/plantation along the borders of the plot, as revealed from the data of 23.12.2004 (figure 4). The land use pattern was continued in the data of 2010, 2013 and 2016 (figures 5 to 7). 5. The KSREC report of Survey No.87/11, produced in W.P.(C) No.2846/2017 also shows the property to be under paddy cultivation in 1967, but, with buildings/structures at the centre with vegetation/plantation along the borders in the data of 2004. This is continued in the years 2010, 2013 and 2016 (figures 5 to 7). 6. The building existing in the property, which has also been assessed to tax by the local authority, clearly indicates that the properties are covered under ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846/2017** **-5-** Circular No. 994733/RA 1/2016/LSGD dated 22.12.2016. Even the Government, by the aforesaid Circular, has permitted constructions to be carried on in a property in which a building is constructed with a valid permit, even if the said property is described as 'nilam' under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 7. Further, this Court has in **Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer – 2017 (3) KLT 822** held that when the property is not included in the data bank, as is the case in the present writ petition, the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) would have to necessarily allow the applications filed under Clause (6) of the KLU Order. 8. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, there shall be a direction to the RDO, the 2[nd] respondent, to consider the applications at Exts.P5 and ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 2808 & 2846/2017** **-6-** P6 in the respective writ petitions in accordance with the Circular cited above and the declaration in **Shivadasan** (supra), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner can apply for a certified copy of the reports of the LLMC & KSREC, in which event The registry shall issue the original of the report of KSREC and maintain a photostat copy of the report in the records of the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 30/8/17