Kerala High Court
Ajith Kumar A vs The District Collector
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/4TH ASWINA, 1939
WP(C).No. 25194 of 2017 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
AJITH KUMAR A.,
S/O.M.S.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
AGED 48 YEARS, MULLASSERY HOUSE,
POTTA P.O, CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 722
BY ADV. SRI.N.B.ANOOP
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR -680 001
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR -680 001
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
CHALAKKUDY -680 307,THRISSUR.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE- 680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY,
REP. BY ITS CONVENER,
(THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT).
6. THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
CHALAKKUDY -680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN
R6 BY SRI.M.P.ASHOKKUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-09-2017,ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.30770 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 25194 of 2017 (Y)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT 9-5-16
EXHIBIT P2 ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 5-7-17
EXHIBIT P3 ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5-7-2017
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7/8/2017 PREPARED
BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.25194 , 30738, 30770, 30771, 30772,
30773, 30791, 30792 and 30853 of 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The properties of the petitioners referred to in the writ petitions were though paddy fields originally, they have been converted as garden lands long prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since the properties are described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, they are unable to obtain building permits from the local authorities concerned for construction of buildings in the properties. It is alleged by the petitioners that in the Data Bank prepared in terms of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that the properties are converted as garden land prior to the commencement of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 before the competent authority, seeking permission to use the properties for other WPC No. 25194 of 2017 and 2 con.cases purposes. Copies of the applications preferred by the petitioners under the Land Utilization Order are part of the records. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions concerns the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order in granting the requests made by the petitioners for use of the properties for other purposes.
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). If the provisions of the Act do not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order to pass orders on the applications preferred by the WPC No. 25194 of 2017 and 3 con.cases petitioners for permission to use their properties for other purposes, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra), within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners along with the copies of the respective writ petitions as also certificates from the Conveners of the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committees under the Act to the effect that the properties are converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in terms of the Data Bank prepared under the Act. If the petitioners make requests for such certificates, the Conveners of the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committees shall issue such certificates on the basis of the Data Bank, if the Data Bank is finalised and if not, after satisfying the correctness of the entry in the Data Bank. Since the restrictions imposed by the Government for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above. Needless to say that if the requests of WPC No. 25194 of 2017 and 4 con.cases the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order are granted, they shall be issued building permits by the local authorities concerned, if they are otherwise entitled for the same. Likewise, it is also directed that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners will also be entitled to apply to the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if applications are preferred by the petitioners in this connection, the same shall 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 the request.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE