High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of with directions to L...

W.P.(C). Nos. 37389/2017 (I) and connected cases, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 37389 of 2017 (I)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date
2017-11-22
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees to consider and pass orders on the correction applications for Data Bank entries after obtaining reports from KSRSEC regarding the properties’ status at the commencement of the Act. Petitioners to pay KSRSEC fees if directed. If relief under Clause 6 of the KLUO is granted, petitioners are entitled to building permits or building numbers, as applicable, by the local authorities. Orders should be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If KLUO Clause 6 relief is granted, petitioners may move for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for reclassification of lands as garden lands, with subsequent action under the Kerala Land Tax Act as appropriate, in line with the decision in Kizhakkambalam and related authorities.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of with directions to LLMCs to decide correction of Data Bank entries after obtaining KSRSEC reports, with payment of fees if directed. If Clause 6 relief is granted, building permits or numbers to be issued as applicable, and reclassification/ fresh assessment under KLUO to be considered within specified time frames; three-month deadline from receipt of judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mydhily Rajan

Respondents

  • Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Ezhuppunna, Eramaloor P.O., Alappuzha District, PIN-688537
  • Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O. Office, Alappuzha-688001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Mansoor B.H.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. K.J. ManuraJ

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Petitioners, whose lands were originally paddy, were converted to garden lands before the Act, yet their properties appeared in the Data Bank, restricting use for building construction, revenue record corrections, and aesthetic expansion. They have approached Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) to correct Data Bank entries and seek corresponding changes in revenue records. Some petitioners seek building permits or numbers for constructed structures, while others seek permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) to reuse lands for other purposes. The Government contends that if conversion occurred prior to the Act, the Act may not apply, a question to be determined by LLMCs, which can correct the Data Bank. The judgment cites Jalaja Dileep (Apex Court, 2015) to support the pre-Act non-applicability, and Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Kizhakkambalam decisions to frame the process for obtaining permissions and reclassifying lands. The court directs LLMCs to decide correction applications after obtaining KSRSEC reports on the status at Act commencement, directing payment of KSRSEC fees if directed, and to issue building permits or numbers if Clause 6 of the KLUO allows, within three months from receipt of the judgment, with further steps under KLUO as appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their properties were converted to garden lands before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and, despite this pre-Act conversion, were entered into the Data Bank. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue records, and request building permits or numbers for constructions already undertaken. Some seek permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for changing use of their lands.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that, where conversion occurred prior to the Act, the Act may not apply; this is a matter for Local Level Monitoring Committees to determine. LLMCs have the power to correct mistakes in the Data Bank. In cases where relief is permissible, decisions should be guided by precedents and the KLUO framework, including procedures under Clause 6 and permissions through competent authorities, with final orders to be issued after due reports (KSRSEC).

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveApex Court held that if properties were converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply; the present judgment relies on this proposition to support pre-Act conversions being outside the Act’s applicability.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited to support the remedy under KLUO and subsequent directions for corrective action, untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016, aligning with the court’s approach in granting relief post-Act considerations.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveUsed to justify timely reclassification/ reassessment under KLUO and related procedures for garden lands, guiding the authority’s actions and timelines.

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 W.P.(C). Nos. 37389/2017 (I) and connected cases, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 37389 of 2017 (I)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER: --------------------** **MYDHILY RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN, KONKERIL HOUSE, ERAMALOOR P.O., EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.** |**RESPONDENT(S):**|**RESPONDENT(S):**| |---|---| |**-------------------------**|| |**1.**|**LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,**| ||**KRISHIBHAVAN, EZHUPUNNA, ERAMALOOR P.O.,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688537.**| |**2.**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**R.D.O. OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.**| **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MANURAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2017, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37389/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** ## **WP(C).No. 37389 of 2017 (I)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.3288309 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUPUNNA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST AND ITS RECEIPT DATED 9.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT BEARING NO.650/17-18.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **-------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.37389, 37410, 37422, 37444, 37463, 37512, 37516, 37576 & 37605 of 2017** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 22[nd] 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 the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the W.P.(c).No.37389/17 & con. cases : 2 : 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 revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, W.P.(c).No.37389/17 & con. cases : 3 : 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, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other W.P.(c).No.37389/17 & con. cases : 4 : 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 reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, W.P.(c).No.37389/17 & con. cases : 5 : 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 Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building W.P.(c).No.37389/17 & con. cases : 6 : 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