Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.