W.P.(C) Nos. 22001/2021 & 24732/2021

W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 22001 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** RAJESH M.R. AGED 48 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR, SINDHOORAM, KUNNATH STREET, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. BY ADVS. SRI RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 543. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.-683 542. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI K.M.FAIZAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24732/2021, THE COURT ON 19.5.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 24732 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** AMEER AHAMED P.M., AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MOHAMED HYDROSE, RESIDING AT 3A & B, LORDS, SKYLINE IMPERIAL GARDEN, STADIUM LINK ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.SUHAIL AMEER,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.AMEER AHAMED, RESIDING AT 3A & B, LORDS, SKYLINE IMPERIAL GARDEN, STADIUM LINK ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017. BY ADVS. SRI RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 543. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERU,MBAVOOR P.O., PIN-683 542. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).22001/2021, THE COURT ON 19.5.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 3 ## **T.R. RAVI, J.** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C)Nos.22001 & 24732 of 2021 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of May, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The issue involved in both these writ petitions are intrinsically connected and hence the writ petitions are being heard and disposed of together. The documents and parties are referred to as in W.P.(C)No.22001 of 2021. 2. An extent of 164.01 Ares of land comprised in ReSy.Nos.53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 & 66 in Block No.58 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk originally belonged to one Abdul Salam. The properties were originally classified as paddy land in the revenue records. Abdul Salam had obtained an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha on 14.2.2005 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order for short) whereby he was granted permission to utilise the land for cultivation of crops other than paddy. The said order is produced as Ext.P2. The order relies on the report of the Principal Agricultural Officer, that the property has been lying without paddy cultivation W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 4 for about eight years and that there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby lands. It is also stated that the neighbouring farmers will not be affected by the filling up of the lands. The petitioner in W.P. (C)No.22001 of 2021 had purchased 51.94 Ares out of the properties of Abdul Salam as per sale deed Nos.486/2010, 498/2010 and 3730/I/2010 of SRO, Perumbavoor. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24732 of 2021 had purchased 113.33 Ares from the above said Abdul Salam and covered by Ext.P2, as per sale deed Nos.485/2010, 497/2010, 977/2012, 978/2012, 1608/2012, 2160/2012 and 2161/2012 of SRO, Perumbavoor. The petitioners in both these writ petitions had applied to the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P3 produced in both the cases, for a reassessment of basic tax by reclassifying the land as purayidam. The petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)Nos.6385 of 2021 and 6365 of 2021 which were disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment produced in both the writ petitions directing the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on the Form A applications submitted by the petitioners after ascertaining the identity of the properties claimed by them with reference to the properties covered by Ext.P2 order. The 1[st] respondent has by Ext.P6 orders dated 5.8.2021 rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners in both these cases. The reason stated is that Ext.P2 order cannot be treated as an order W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 5 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order and it does not have the effect of permitting the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to convert the land into dry lands. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 orders produced in the writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard Sri Rinny Stephen Champarambil on behalf of the petitioners in both these cases, Sri Rajeev Jyothish George Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C)No.27432 of 2021 and Sri K.M.Faizal, Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C)No.22001 of 2021. 4. The counsel for the petitioners points out that the issue involved is no longer Res Integra and is covered by several decisions of this court. Reliance is placed on the judgment in **Shameem P.K. & Ors. v Revenue Divisional officer, Idukki & Ors.** reported in **[2021 (2) KHC 373]** to submit that once the property has been reclaimed or converted prior to 30.12.2017 as a dry land on the basis of orders obtained under the KLU order, such land does not have to undergo the process under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. This court specifically held that the only question to be considered by the Tahsildar is whether the lands are dry lands prior to 30.12.2017. W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 6 The counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands belonging to the petitioners are not included in the data bank as paddy land. It is further submitted that under the Town Planning Scheme applicable for the Perumbavoor Town, a major portion of the property falls under the residential zone, wherein, going by the Development Control Regulation, paddy cultivation is not permissible. The counsel submits that any use which is not permitted under the Town Planning Scheme is to be treated as prohibited. It is also submitted that the cultivation of tapioca and plantain permitted in Ext.P2 necessarily requires conversion of wetland into dry land and as such, the contention that there is no permission granted for converting wetland as dry land as per Ext.P2 order is not sustainable. The counsel further relies on the judgment in **Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. V. The Commissioner of Land Revenue & Ors** reported in **[2007 (2) KHC 346]** , wherein a learned Single Judge held that no permission under the KLU Order is necessary for any activity of construction or use of land in the residential use zone or any other zone in the Town Planning Scheme. The counsel points out that a subsequent Division Bench in **Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala & Ors.** reported in **[2015 (6) KHC 142]** has noticed the above judgment with approval. Much later, a learned Single Judge has in **Shaji Chacko v. State of** W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 7 **Kerala & Ors.** reported in **[2020 (6) KHC 420]** reiterated the legal position that land covered by Town Planning Scheme and identified as a residential zone does not require further permission under the KLU order. The learned Judge referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep** reported in **[2015 (1) KLT 984]** and held that the said judgment would apply only if the KLU order is applicable and that once the land is covered under the Town Planning Act, it no longer comes under the ambit of KLU Order. Thereafter, another Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala & Ors. V. Binu Mathew Chacko & Ors.** reported in **[2020 (6) KHC 717** ] noted with approval the above decisions and after referring to another Division Bench judgment of this Court in **LLMC, Kizhakkambalam v. Mariyumma** reported in **[2015 (2) KLT 516]** , held that all that is required is for the applicant to submit an application before the Revenue Authority to make an additional entry in the basic tax register showing the present tenure of the land. I am in respectful agreement with the decisions afore cited. The petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. 5. In the result, W.P.(C)Nos.22001 of 2021 and 24732 of 2021 are allowed. Ext.P6 orders produced in both the writ petitions W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 & 24732/2021 8 are quashed. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reassess and reclassify the properties belonging to the petitioners, covered by Ext.P2 order dated 14.2.2005 without insisting on payment of any amount prescribed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. There will be a further direction to the 2[nd] respondent to make consequential corrections in the revenue records including the basic tax register showing the present nature of the lands belonging to the petitioners as purayidam/dry lands. The 2[nd] respondent shall also issue possession certificate and land tax receipt showing the classification as purayidam. Necessary orders shall be passed by the 1[st] respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and consequential orders shall be issued by the 2[nd] respondent within three weeks from the issuance of the order by the 1[st] respondent as directed above. Sd/- **T.R. RAVI** **JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 9 & 24732/2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22001/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.7.2019 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO A9630/2005 DATED 14.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE RDO MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.2.2021 IN FORM A Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.1.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 26486/2020 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.3.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 6385/2021 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/12/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE IN W.P(C) NO.28897/2021. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR PERUMBAVOOR TOWN. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF MASTER PLAN FOR PERUMBAVOOR TOWN SANCTIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE III APPENDED TO MASTER PLAN FOR PERUMBAVOOR TOWN. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 15/12/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY. W.P.(C)Nos.22001/2021 10 & 24732/2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24732/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT| ||ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER,| ||PERUMBAVOOR.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.A9-| ||630/2005 DATED 14.02.2005 ISSUED BY THE| ||RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||26.02.2021 IN FORM A.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||06.01.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC| ||NO.26486/2020.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||19.03.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC| ||NO.6365/2021.| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2021| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/2016| ||ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL| ||REGULATIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR| ||PERUMBAVOOR TOWN| |Exhibit P9|A TRUE COPY OF MASTER PLAN FOR PERUMBAVOOR| ||TOWN SANCTIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF| ||KERALA|