Kerala High Court
K.T.Kurian vs The State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2025
2025:KER:89330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39499 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
K.T.KURIAN,
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O. K.K.THOMAS, C-31, CHOICE GARDENS, TOC-H ROAD END,
VYTTILA JANATHA, COCHIN - 682019.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SMT.PHILIA KOSHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682030.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
GROUND FLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA- 686669.
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PATTIMATTOM- MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA-
686669.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664.
WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -2-
2025:KER:89330
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER ACT 28 OF 2008) OF PIRAVOM
MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN-686664.
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT-686664.
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -3-
2025:KER:89330
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
i. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 to use for non- agricultural purposes, his 26.24 ares of property also which is remaining after the already sanctioned 50.20 ares vide Ext.P16 in Sy.Nos.780/10 and 776/10 together admeasuring 76.44 ares in Piravom Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk in Ernakulam District, which is in his possession.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 3 rd respondent to pass an order granting permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order in respect of an extent of 26.24 ares of property in Sy.Nos.780/10 and 776/10 of Piravom Village which is in his possession, which is not included in Ext.P16 order. iii. To direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application after hearing the petitioner.
iv. To dispense with the production of english translation of vernacular documents.
v. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.
2. Petitioner and his wife are owners of an extent of 2.18 acres of immovable property made up of 1.24 acres in Sy.No.776/10 and 0.94 acres in Sy.No.780/10, both properties lying contiguous in Piravom Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk, and that the total extent possessed by them is only 1.89 acres, after donating a portion of WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -4- 2025:KER:89330 their property for public roads. It is submitted that the said property was purchased originally by the petitioner's grandfather in the year 1933. While so, with an intention for constructing a building in the said property Ext.P1 application dated 04.04.2017 was filed for exclusion of the property from the fetters of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Ext.P2 is the receipt issued by the Akshaya centre, Pazhoor evidencing submission of the application. While considering Ext.P1 application in connection with the 'Pariharam 2017', an initiative for public grievance redressal programme, the authorities could not trace Ext.P1 application and thereupon Ext.P3 application dated 25.05.2017 was submitted by the petitioner. While so, petitioner submitted an application under Rule 12(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules which was rejected as per Ext.P6, and the appeal preferred against the same was also rejected as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by non-consideration of Exts.P1 and P3 applications and the rejection as per Exts.P6 and P7, petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.16384 of 2022 which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P3 applications submitted by the petitioner seeking exemption under the KLU order, and other prayers in the writ petitions were left open. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the application was WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -5- 2025:KER:89330 allowed as per Ext.P9 for an extent of 50.20 ares (1.240 acres). Alleging that Ext.P9 order was issued without hearing the petitioner, a contempt of Court case was filed as Con.Case(C) No.1871 of 2022, pursuant to which Ext.P10 order was issued withdrawing Ext.P9. Thereafter Ext.P16 order was issued permitting usage of the land for activities other than agricultural activities for an extent of 50.20 ares in Thandaper No.4907.
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that in Ext.P1 application to which Ext.P2 receipt was issued the request of the petitioner was for the conversion of property having an extent of 2.18 acres. But when the authorities submitted that Ext.P1 application is not traceable Ext.P3 request was filed, but due to an inadvertent omission the request made in Ext.P3 was to exclude 1.24 acres of land in Sy.Nos.780/10 and 770/10 of the revenue village from the ambit of KLU order 1967 which has been allowed as per Ext.P16. Petitioner would contend that this was a mistake in submitting Ext.P3 and that in Ext.P1 the extent of land has been properly shown. Petitioner would contend that Ext.P11 letter was sent by the petitioner on 11.01.2018 confirming that the extent of property in Ext.P3 in the whole of Sy.Nos.780/10 and 776/10 is 2.18 acres which was also received by the District Collector as evident from Ext.P11 receipt. Further Ext.P12 letter was submitted to the 2 nd WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -6- 2025:KER:89330 respondent District Collector referring to Ext.P1 application bearing No.36780 for exclusion of property comprised in Sy.Nos.780/10 and 776/10, which is seen received by the 2nd respondent District Collector as per the endorsement on the same. A further communication was submitted before the 3rd respondent RDO itself as Ext.P13, wherein Ext.P1 application was mentioned seeking exclusion of property under Sy.Nos.776/10 and 780/10 of Piravom Village from the fetters of the KLU order 1967. Ext.P13 also reveals that the request of the petitioner was for an extent of 2.18 acres of land. Later, Ext.P14 letter dated 26.03.2018 was sent by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, wherein also it is mentioned that the extent of property is 2.18 acres. A further letter dated 04.09.2017 was sent to the 3rd respondent as Ext.P15 by registered post which was also duly received by the Revenue Divisional Officer as evident from the acknowledgement card attached to Ext.P14. It is submitted that Ext.P15 letter dated 04.09.2017 was also submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P16 order impugned herein would reveal that at the time of hearing, petitioner had brought to the notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer that Ext.P1 application was for 2.18 acres and it is only due to an inadvertent mistake in Ext.P3 that the request was mentioned to be in respect of only 1.24 acres. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P18 which is a request submitted before the WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -7- 2025:KER:89330 3rd respondent for expediting the proceedings on Ext.P3 request, wherein also mention is made about 2.18 acres of land. Similar request submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P19 also would reveal that the application was for 2.18 acres of land. It is seen that Ext.P19 was also sent by registered post.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent and based on the same it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P1 application was never received by the authorities and in Ext.P3 the request was only for an order under KLU for an extent of 1.24 acres and the same has been allowed as per Ext.P16. It is evident from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that in the hearing it is specifically contended by the petitioner that the KLU application was originally filed on 04.04.2017 and the same was found to be misplaced at the office of the respondent, the petitioner was compelled to submit an application on 25.05.2017 and in the said circumstance a clerical error occurred in writing down 1.24 acres instead of 2.18 acres in Ext.P3, as the same was done in a hurry, and that he actually intended to convert a total extent of 2.18 acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos.780/10 & 776/10. But taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P3 application was only for 1.24 acres the application was allowed only to the said extent.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -8-
2025:KER:89330
6. Admittedly, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application in the 'pariharam portal' through the Akshaya centre, Pazhoor LTS which is admittedly for an order under the KLU in respect of 2.18 acres in Sy.No.780/10 and 776/10. Authorities took a stand that the same is not traceable. Thereupon, the petitioner had to submit Ext.P3 in a hurry and due to an inadvertent mistake the extent of land to be considered under the KLU order was shown as 1.24 acres instead of 2.18 acres. This Court by Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.07.2022 directed Exts.P1 and P3 to be considered in accordance with law, consequent to which Ext.P16 order was issued on 24.11.2022. A pertinent aspect to be noted is that Ext.P11 communication was submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, wherein it is stated that the request made by him for KLU permission was for an extent of 2.18 acres comprised in Sy.Nos.776/10 and 780/10 which was duly received by the District Collector as evident from the receipt attached to Ext.P11 which is dated 11.01.2018. Ext.P12 is a similar communication to the District Collector which is dated 22.06.2018. Ext.P13 is a communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer the 3rd respondent herein, wherein also the extent of land is shown as 2 acres and 18 cents, and Ext.P13 is dated 14.03.2018, and it has been sent to the RDO by registered post as evident from Ext.P13 itself. Ext.P14 is another communication sent to the 3 rd WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -9- 2025:KER:89330 respondent dated 26.03.2018, wherein also the extent of property has been mentioned as 2.18 acres which was also sent by registered post acknowledgement due and the same has been received by the 3rd respondent as evident from the receipt produced along with Ext.P14. Ext.P14 communication is dated 26.03.2018. Ext.P15 communication was also sent to the 3rd respondent on 04.09.2017. Further, it is to be seen that Exts.P18 and P19 communications were also sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer which are dated 02.02.2018 and 12.02.2020 respectively, wherein the extent of property has been shown as 2.18 acres and it is seen that Ext.P19 is sent by registered post as seen from the receipt produced along with Ext.P19.
7. In the counter affidavit, there is no answer to these documents produced by the petitioner before the District Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer pointing out that the application is in respect of 2.18 acres. The only contention raised in the counter affidavit is that Ext.P1 application dated 04.04.2017 was never received by the respondent, but do not deny the issuance of other communication submitted before the authorities by the petitioner which were all submitted prior to the issuance of Ext.P16 order on 24.11.2022. Yet another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner is aged 77 years at the time of filing of the writ petition, WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -10- 2025:KER:89330 and now he would have crossed the age of 81 years. Ext.P1 application though it is contended by the respondent that the same has not been received was in respect of 2.18 acres and when the authorities intimated that the same is not traceable, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 in a hurry, wherein a mistake has crept in, wherein the petitioner has requested for 1.24 acres of land to be considered under the KLU order. But in Exts.P11 to P15 and Exts.P18 and P19 communications submitted by the petitioner which were prior to the decision taken as per Ext.P16, the specific reference is to the effect that the applications are in respect of 2.18 acres. The petitioner submitted that the mistake crept in Ext.P3 regarding the extent of land was due to the fact that Ext.P3 was submitted in a hurry as he was intimated that Ext.P1 application for which Ext.P2 receipt was issued is not traceable in the office of the 3rd respondent.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the 3 rd respondent as an application in respect of 2.18 acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos.776/10 and 780/10 of Piravom Village in the light of the subsequent communication issued by the petitioner as Exts.P11 to P15 and P18 & P19. Therefore, above writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the request made by the WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -11- 2025:KER:89330 petitioner in Ext.P3 as a request for consideration of the application of the petitioner under the KLU order, 1967 for an extent of 2.18 acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos.776/10 and 780/10 of Piravom Village. Appropriate decision shall be taken on Ext.P3 in respect of the land over and above sanctioned as per Ext.P16 i.e. for an extent of 50.20 ares (1.240 acres) and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioner, and a decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-
WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -12-
2025:KER:89330 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39499/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.4.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.4.2017
ISSUED FROM AKSHAYA CENTER, PAZHOOR,
PIRAVOM.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPLICATION
NUMBERED AS 36780 DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ON 25.5.2017.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THAT APPLICATION DATED
04.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 27 A OF ACT 28 OF 2008 READ
WITH RULE 12(13) OF THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
RULES.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO. A34570/17(2) DATED 17.01.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NUMBER
A3-4570/17(3)/R.DIS DATED 19.11.2021
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEARING NO. L5-10607/2021 DATED 1.2.2022.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.07.2022 IN WP (C). 16384/2022.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER DATED NIL
BEARING NO. A311289/21R.DIS PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2022
BEARING NO. A3-12099/22 (1) ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2018
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.06.2018
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
WP(C) No.39499 of 2022 -13-
2025:KER:89330
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2018
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.09.2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. A3- 12099/22/R.DIS. DATED 24/11/2022 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 A true copy of the order dated 05.12.2022 in Contempt Case 1871/2022 in WP(c) 16384/2022 Exhibit P18 A true copy of the application dated 02.02.2018 submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent Exhibit P19 A true copy of the application dated 12.02.2020 submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent