Kerala High Court
Dawn Mathews vs The Tahsildar on 18 November, 2014
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/27TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 27952 of 2014 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
DAWN MATHEWS, S/O.MATHEWS,
AGED 40 YEARS, RANNIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KALAMASSERY DESOM, SOUTH KALAMASSERY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 104.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.PAULSON.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE TAHSILDAR, CHALAKUDY,
TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKUDY P.O., PIN-680 307.
2. THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 27952 of 2014 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2865/08 DT. 07-04-2008 OF
CHALAKUDY SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3909/07 DT. 08-06-2007 OF
CHALAKUDY SRO.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KORATTY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF ALPHA PAPER PRODUCTS.
EXHIBIT P3A : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FACTORIES AND BOILERS IN FAVOUR OF ALPHA PAPER
PRODUCTS.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KADUKUTTY
GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF LEETHA PRESS AND
PROCESS UNIT.
EXHIBIT P4A : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FACTORIES AND BOILERS IN FAVOUR OF LEETHA PRESS AND
PROCESS UNIT.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KADUKUTTY
GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P5A : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FACTORIES AND BOILERS TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KORATTY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT TO SMT.NEETHA DAWN.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE BTR IN RELATES TO THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MURINGOOR
THEKKUMURY.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DT. 26-06-2014
WITH FORM A.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.252/2014
DT. 29-07-2014 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MURINGOOR
THEKKUMURY.
EXHIBIT P10 : PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS.) SHOWING THE NATURE AND IYE OF
THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
......2/-
WP(C).No. 27952 of 2014 (T)
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN 2012(3) KLT 333.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.27952 of 2014-T.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of 4.05 and 12.95 Ares of land in survey No.190/3 and 190/4 in Muringoor Thekkumury Village. According to the petitioner, this is a dry land even though it is classified as nilam in BTR. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration in the light of the decision of this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012 (3) KLT 333). However, it is submitted that without prejudice to the above request, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the District Collector, Thrissur for the purpose of utilising the land for other purposes.
2. It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that WP(C).No.27952/2014-T. 2 they are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the "Act 28 of 2008"). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioners are entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.
4. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the "KLUO") to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in WP(C).No.27952/2014-T. 3 question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others (2010 (2) KHC 499) held as follows:
"If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU ."
5. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham (2012 (4) KLT 511) another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.
WP(C).No.27952/2014-T. 4
6. The petitioner relies on Ext.P9 report of the Village Officer. This would clearly indicate the nature of the land. It is also seen that there are several buildings in and around the above property. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case where permission can be granted to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Thrissur within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Thereafter, based on such request permission shall be granted to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks. It is made clear that these writ petitions are disposed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to establish any claim based on Jalaja Dileep's case (supra). No costs.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (JUDGE) Kvs/-
// true copy //