SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ker) 677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Issathul Islam Madrassa – Appellant
Vs.
Keezhattoor Grama Panchayath – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5291 of 2015
Decided On: 03.07.2015

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:S. Sreekumar, K. Jaju Babu, Renjith Thampan, Sr. Advocates, B. Premnath (E), P.R. Reena, C. Vathsalan, K. Rakesh Roshan, M.U. Vijayalakshmi, A.B. Mohanakumar, G. Sreekumar Chelur, Nandagopal S. Kurup, Prasad Chandran, P.V. Dileep, Bechu Kurian Thomas, P. Paul Jacob, Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, P.B. Sahasranaman, T.S. Harikumar, M.R. Sasith, M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, P. Gopinath, P. Benny Thomas, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, George Poonthottam, K.S. Rajesh, M. Shaju Purushothaman,Johnson Gomez, S. Biju Kizhakkanela, Devan Ramachandran, K.M. Aneesh, Adarsh Kumar, A. Sreekala, T.C. Suresh Menon, P.S. Appu, P.R. Remya,V.M. Krishnakumar, T.N. Manoj, Asha K. Shenoy, Pratap Abraham Varghese, C. Arun Prasanth, A.S. Brijesh, Roopa Ramachandran, Babu S. Nair,Smitha Babu, U.K. Devidas, P.M. Shahida, V.S. Viswambharan, P.R. Sreejith, M. Promodh Kumar, P. Santhosh Poduval, R. Rajitha, K.D. Sreevisakh,John Josephroy, Jefrin Manuel, S. Jiji, T. Prasad, K.M. Nazarudheen, K.I. Sageer, Binu Paul, Kaleeswaram Raj, P.K. Nijoy, C. Prabitha, P. Ramachandran, M. Anil Kumar, T.A. Unnikrishnan, K.S. Praveen, Peeyus A. Kottam, P. Martin Jose, G. Hariharan, H. Praveen, M.H. Hanil Kumar,M.R. Dhanil, T.K. Aravinda Kumar Babu, Rajesh Nambiar, K.P. Santhi, V. Rajasekharan Nair, Rilgin V. George, E.U. Dhanya, K. Mathew John,Domson J. Vattakuzhy, Binoy Vasudevan, P.G. Babitha, P.K. Sajeev, K.P. Sudheer, Arun Mathew Vadakkan, Noorji Noushad, Anil K. Mohammed,Jamsheed Hafiz, Avaneesh Koyikkara, Lindons C. Davis, K.K. Unni Ezhumattoor, R. Dipu, Benliur Joseph Manayani, Sanal P. Raj, K. Sajan Vargheese, M.P. Liju, Benny Varghese Thettayil, C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Santharam, Rekha Aravind and K. Dilip
For Respondents/Defendant: K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, Philip J. Vettickattu, Kavery S. Thampi, Jibu P. Thomas, Sheejo Chacko, K. Rajesh Kannan,P.K. Manojkumar, M.V. Bose, Rony Jose, George A. Cherian, B. Krishna Mani, K.P. Vijayan, V.N. Haridas, K. Ravi Pariyarath, C.A. Majeed, P. Ramakrishnan, P.C. Sasidharan, S. Subhash Chand, N. Unnikrishnan, Subhash Cyriac, Sheeba Joseph, K.S. Bharathan, Shaji P. Chaly, R. Sanjith,K.K. Ashkar, K. Shibili Naha, V.A. Muhammed, E.S.M. Kabeer, Preethi K. Purushothaman, Harish R. Menon, Kodoth Sreedharan, V.M. Kurian, R. Ranjith and Government Pleader

Headnote:

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 5, 14 - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Clause 6 - sine qua non - Conversion of - obiter dictum - Mutation - Findings of - Held, Court is inclined to hold that the ratio of Jalaja Dileep is not an obiter dictum on the issue raised in the present batch of Writ Petitions - Change of entries in revenue records, technically termed 'mutation', may at best be a ministerial job - Mutation follows the use of land, reflecting the temporal impact on the land in question - Court is inclined to hold that for the purposes like using the agricultural land of whatever description-say, paddy land, wetland, etc.- the landholder cannot circumvent the statutory stipulations concerning the conversion under the excuse that the land ceased to answer the description as contained in the revenue records - It is also specious to suggest that what is protected in KLUO is food crop, but not the land, which is a state subject. It is too well known a cannon of constitutional construction that the incidental legislative trenching, if at all, of a field is permissible, when the pith and substance of one field becomes a mere myth without the aid of the element in another field - Court is inclined to hold that the Wetland Act is not retrospective in its application - landholder cannot, in my view, take the plea of antiquity concerning the conversion of land in violation of the statutory mandate - It necessarily gives rise to the presumption that the change of nature of the land was in violation of KLUO, unless the landholder succeeds in establishing that the land was so even prior to 1967 - If any landholder has raised any structures or has been raising any structures under any valid building permit, either on the basis of any judicial directive issued prior to the rendering of Jalaja Dileep by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or based on the building permit issued by the authorities essentially going by the ratio of the judgments of this Court holding the field prior to Jalaja Dileep, those structures shall not be disturbed

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. God's own country is also man's paradise, with teeming millions trying to have a foothold, better expressed, a secure roof over their heads. With the density of population at three times the national average, here man is, insidiously, perhaps out of compulsion, waging a turf war with the nature--the trees and water, especially. The inelastic land resource fast getting exhausted for non-agricultural purposes, the State stares at the prospect of rendering itself a consuming society, rather than a producing one. Then step in the Government and the Legislature with measures to protect the nature's province: Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 have been brought on to the statute books. To gauge the pressure of people on nature's habitat can be quoted this excerpt from a news report (the Hindu, May 18, 2013), which is based on the latest census. The density of population in Kerala has gone up to 860 persons per square kilometre from a figure of 819 in 2001. The highest density of 1,508 persons per sq. km is reported from Thiruvananthapuram district, while Idukki with 255 has the lowest density. Malappuram with a population of 41,12,920, is the most populated district in the State, while Wayanad with 8,17,420 is the least populated. The total number of households in Kerala as per the census is 78,53,754, with the average household size put at 4.3. In 2001, the household size was 4.7; Malappuram district with 5.2 as average household size is at the top, while Pathanamthitta district with 3.7 has the lowest household size.

Adjudicatory Ambit:

2. This batch of Writ Petitions throws up the issue of inter-play between a secondary legislation--the Kerala Land Utilisation Order - and a primary legislation--the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Put differently, whether both the enactments, notwithstanding the disparity in the source of their origins, stand simultaneously to hold their respective fields or the latter subsumes the former from the day of its enactment or enforcement? In other words, whether these two pieces of legislation conflate or conflict in resolving the issue of conversion of--compendiously expressed--agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands.

3. Many of the cases in the batch have shades of variance, factual and legal. Nevertheless, the primary issue remains whether the authorities of the Local Self Governments are bound to grant building permits, once the nature of the property stood changed prior to the enforcement of the Wetland Act 2008, despite the fact that the land still continues to be reflected in the revenue records as nilam or of similar description. As per S. 2(38) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, nilam means land adopted for paddy cultivation.

Brief Facts:

4. While keeping in view the differences in the facts of the individual Writ Petitions, which will be adverted to at an appropriate time, if at all they call for separate treatment; I propose to take up the facts in W.P.(C) No. 3198/2015 for the narrative purpose and for examining the issue essentially common in all the Writ Petitions. I may, therefore, ever so briefly touch upon the facts of the matter, which are as follows:

5. The petitioner, employed abroad, is the owner in possession of 43 acres of land in Sy. No. 484 of Kuttapuzha Village, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 02.07.2011. Through Exhibit P2, dated 05.06.2012, the Village Officer filed a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the property in question is bounded by road on the southern side and by residential properties on all other sides. To the similar effect is Exhibit P3 certificate dated 23.05.2012 issued by the agricultural Officer, who is also the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. They have certified that the petitioner's property is not fit for paddy cultivation.

6. Exhibit P4 is the extract of the
















































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top