Kerala High Court
Mariamma Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2025
2025:KER:17405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19047 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MARIAMMA MATHEW,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O. MATHEW GEORGE, KURUVITHADAM HOUSE, ARAKUZHA
VILLAGE, PERUMBALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA P. O., ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682030.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).19099/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :2:
2025:KER:17405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19099 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JOHN MATHEW,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW GEORGE, KURUVITHADAM HOUSE, ARAKUZHA
VILLAGE, PERUMBALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI
ARJUN S BENEDICT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.
BY GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).19047/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :3:
2025:KER:17405
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021
============================
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment, and WP(C) No.19099 of 2021 is treated as the leading case.
2. As per the averment in the writ petition petitioner is the owner in possession of 55 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.363/4A of Marady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, and the property is in the limits of Muvattupuzha town. For the last more than 50 years the entire property is lying as converted. Even in Ext.P1 data bank prepared the propety is described as converted land. Petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 application under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the aforesaid property for other purpose. As no action was taken on Exts.P2 and P3 petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.28034 of 2017 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment directing the 2nd respondent/District Collector to consider the petitioner's application. Even though in Ext.P1 data bank the property is described as converted land, due to the inclusion of the same in the WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :4: 2025:KER:17405 data bank, petitioner submitted necessary application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for removing the property from the data bank, and in the said proceedings Ext.P5 KSRSEC report was also obtained. Thereafter the LLMC after considering Ext.P5 KSRSEC report decided to remove the property from the data bank as per Ext.P6 and the same was communicated to the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P7. In Ext.P7 report it was categorically informed that the property is converted land prior to the date of implementation of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2008'). Since no action was taken thereafter petitioner was constrained to approach this Court filing WP(C) No.470/2021, and based on Ext.P8 interim order issued by this Court a decision was taken by the 3 rd respondent RDO on the application seeking permission under the KLU order and rejected by Ext.P9.
3. Petitioner submits that decision in Ext.P9 is in violation of the findings in Ext.P5 KSRSEC report as well as Ext.P7 minutes and Ext.P7 report of the LLMC. Petitioner relies on the judgment in Mather Nagar Residence Association & Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] and submits that merely because the property is lying fallow and water get logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :5: 2025:KER:17405 of the property, it cannot be termed as a wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A perusal of Ext.P9 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer would reveal that the claim was registered taking a stand that the earlier decision of the LLMC evident by Ext.P6 minutes was without taking into consideration the KSRSEC report. In view of the same the Agricultural Officer was directed to file further report in the matter, and the Agricultural Officer submitted a report stating that, till 2013 the property was lying as paddy land. Petitioner submits that once the LLMC has already found that on physical verification and considering the KSRSEC report that the property was converted prior to 2008; the said order cannot be reviewed and in support of the said contention petitioner relies on the judgment in Mary John v. District Collector [2020 (6) KHC 86]. Petitioner would further submit that in similar circumstance this Court has interfered and set aside the order passed by the RDO as per Ext.P12 judgment in WP(C) No.11657 of 2020.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent contending that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, LLMC has taken a decision to exclude the said land from the data bank, and the KSRSEC images were not verified while passing the said order. Thereupon a fresh report was called for from the Agricultural Officer after verifying the KSRSEC WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :6: 2025:KER:17405 report. As per the report of the Agricultural Officer the property was lying as paddy land till 2013, and not suitable for cultivation and therefore KLU permission cannot be granted.
5. In WP(C) No.19047 of 2021 also similar contentions were raised, in which also the LLMC as per Ext.P6 took a decision to remove the property from the data bank and it was reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P7. Later by Ext.P9 order an application seeking KLU permission submitted by the petitioner was rejected.
6. In the said writ petition also a detailed counter affidavit was filed raising the very same contention that, earlier the LLMC took a decision to remove the property from the data bank, and the KSRSEC images were not verified and therefore a fresh report was called for by the Agricultural Officer who submitted that the land has been lying as paddy land till 2013 and therefore rejected the request as per Ext.P10.
7. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
8. The main reason for rejecting the application and not to accept the decision of the LLMC is that the LLMC while deciding to remove the property from the data bank has not taken into consideration the KSRSEC report. Ext.P6 is the minutes of the meeting of the LLMC in both the cases. A perusal of Ext.P6 would WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :7: 2025:KER:17405 reveal that the said decision taken by the LLMC to remove the property from the data bank was after considering the KSRSEC report and discussing the same with the meeting of the LLMC, and it is on the basis of the same and on the basis of the site inspection that the LLMC found that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and decided to remove the same from the data bank. While it is clearly stated in Ext.P6 that LLMC has taken a decision to remove the property from the data bank after considering the KSRSEC report, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P9 orders in both these writ petitions for the reason that LLMC has not considered the KSRSEC report. Yet another aspect to be noted is that in the data bank prepared as evident from Ext.P1 the nature of the property was entered as converted land. This aspect was also not taken into consideration while rejecting the application as per Ext.P9. In the light of the above this Court is of the opinion that the decision taken as per Ext.P9 to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of permission under the KLU order rejecting the earlier LLMCs decision for the sole reason that KSRSEC report was not considered by the LLMC is liable to be interfered with. This Court in Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.11657 of 2021 has also held that once the LLMC has decided to recommend removal of land from the data bank, the same LLMC cannot take a different view later and the WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :8: 2025:KER:17405 LLMC is not vested with any power to review its own decisions. Further in Ext.P12 judgment in WP(C) No.11657 of 2021 this Court considered a similar issue and set aside the order and directed the respondent to reconsider the application.
9. After taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, and on having found that the reasons stated in Ext.P9 not to consider the decision of the LLMC for the reason that they have not considered the KSRSEC report before taking a decision to remove the property from the data bank is found to be wrong, I am of the view that Ext.P9 order impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be set aside. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order impugned in these writ petitions are set aside with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent/competent officer to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission under the KLU order, 1967 afresh taking into consideration Ext.P5 KSRSEC report and Ext.P6 minutes of the LLMC and Ext.P1 data bank, and take a final decision in the matter within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners are permitted to submit their argument notes and the 3rd respondent/competent authority while taking a decision as directed above shall also advert to the contentions taken by the petitioners in the said argument note. WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 :9:
2025:KER:17405 With the above said direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 : 10 :
2025:KER:17405 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19099/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA PERTAINING TO 55 CENTS OF PROPERTY IN SY.NO.363/4A OF MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/06/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING PERMISSION FOR USING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY HAVING 15 CENTS IN SY.NO.363/4/A MARADY VILLAGE, FOR OTHER PURPOSES OTHER THAN FOR CULTIVATION.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/06/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING PERMISSION FOR USING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY HAVING 40 CENTS IN SY.NO.363/4/A MARADY VILLAGE FOR OTHER PURPOSES OTHER THAN FOR CULTIVATION.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/08/2017 IN WP(C) NO.28034/2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF KSREC REPORT NO.A/172/2015/KSREC DATED 12/02/2018 PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.363/4. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE HELD ON 06/03/2018.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.KVK-6/18-19 DATED 01/06/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/04/2021 IN WP(C) 470/2021.
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 : 11 :
2025:KER:17405 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT.P2 AND P3 APPLICATION FILED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF KLU, 1967.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020(2) KHC 94 (MATHER NAGAR RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION & ANR. V.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM & OTHERS).
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020(6) KHC 86(MARY JOHN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI & OTHERS).
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 11657/2021 (KURUVITHADAM AGENCIES VS, STATE OF KERALA) DATED 05/07/2021.
WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 : 12 :
2025:KER:17405 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19047/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PERTAINING TO 15.66 CENTS OF PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR 20 CENTS IN SY.NO.363/3 AND 363/3-4 OF MARADY VILLAGE, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR 15.66 CENTS IN SY.NO.363/6B OF MARADY VILLAGE, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO27545/2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF KSREC REPORT NO.A/172/2015/KSREC DATED 12.02.2018 PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.363/3. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE HELD ON 06.03.2018.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.MVK-6/18-19 DATED 01.06.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2021 IN W.P.(C) 442/2021.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2021 BEARING NO.A3-5559/17/K.DIS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT.P2 AND P3 APPLICATION FILED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF KLU, 1967.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020(2) KHC 94 (MATHER NAGAR RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION & ANR. VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WP(C) Nos. 19099 & 19047 of 2021 : 13 : 2025:KER:17405 ERNAKULAM & OTHERS) Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020(6) KHC 86 (MARY JOHN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI & OTHERS) Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2021 IN W.P.(C) 11657/2021 (KURUVITHADAM AGENCIES VS. STATE OF KERALA) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LLMC REPORT Exhibit R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER