Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
AJIKUMAR K.V. - Appellant
Versus
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS - Respondent
W.A. No. 926 of 2015 and W.P.C. No. 12766 of 2015
Decided on : 03-12-2015
Paddy Land - Property Classification - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 - [W.A. No. 926 of 2015] - Re-survey No. 53/11 - KLU Order - 2008 Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased property for residential and cultivation purposes, which was originally paddy land converted for other crops and fish farming. The property was classified as paddy land in the data bank, leading to a dispute over permission for conversion and reclamation of ponds.
Finding of the Court:
The court declared the property as reclaimed land before the 2008 Act and not paddy land or wet land under the Act. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Issues: Dispute over the classification of the property as paddy land and the permission for conversion and reclamation of ponds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of paddy land and wet land under the 2008 Act, emphasizing that a property cannot be both paddy land and wet land. The court also considered the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the writ petition seeking police protection was allowed, directing the authorities to ensure compliance with the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
1. W.A. No. 926 of 2015 is filed by a third party challenging judgment dated 27/11/2014 in W.P.C. No. 23532 of 2014 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') and disposed of the writ petition declaring that the property in Re-survey No. 53/11 situated in Kuttoor Village in Thiruvalla Taluk belonging to the petitioner is not a paddy land as stated in the data bank entries prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short 'LLMC') and the petitioner was permitted to seek permission for conversion under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order'). The appellant is a third party claiming to be the Secretary of the Padasekhara Samithi and has filed the appeal after seeking leave of this Court.
2. W.P.C. No. 12766/2015 has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 23532/2014 seeking for police protection inter alia contending that after the judgment by the learned Single Judge, the Revenue Divisional Officer has permitted conversion of two plots situated in R.S. Nos. 53/11 and 53/19 in Block No. 11 of Kuttoor Village, pursuant to which when steps were taken to fill up the plots, the same were physically obstructed by respondents 3 and 4. They have submitted a complaint before the police seeking adequate police protection and since no action was taken in the matter, the writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the police authorities to provide adequate protection for converting their lands as permitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. The short facts involved in the writ appeal are:
The petitioner along with his father-in-law claimed to have purchased 32.20 Ares of property in Re-Sy. No. 53/11 and 37.20 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 53/19 situated in Block No. 11 of Kuttoor village, Thiruvalla Taluk by two separate sale deeds. The property was purchased for the purpose of constructing a residential house and to utilise the balance extent of land for cultivation. It is stated that originally the property having an extent of 32.20 Ares was lying as paddy filed. It was converted about 28 years back and thereafter it was cultivated with other crops. It is stated that the property has very old trees including teak wood having an age of more than 20 years. There existed a residential building also in a portion of the property along with a cattle shed. It is stated that the Sri Ayyappan Nair, the predecessor-in-interest availed a loan under Government scheme and constructed two ponds in a portion of the aforesaid property and commenced fish farming. However, he stopped fish farming by early 1990's. The residential building constructed by Sri Ayyappan Nair has since been demolished. Except the two ponds in the property, the remaining land was lying as dry land. It was, at that stage, that the property was purchased by the petitioner and his father-in-law. In order to fill up the ponds for better utilisation of the property, petitioner submitted an application before the Village Officer. Since no action was taken in that regard, another application Ext. P5 dated 30/04/2014 was submitted to the Village Officer. An enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer after calling for reports from the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer reported that the property in question has been converted long back and the two ponds are artificially created for fish farming which were remaining un-utilised for the last more than 10 years. The report also indicates the existence of trees having an age of 15 to 20 years. Ext. P6 is the said report. The report and mahazar prepared by the Agricultural Officer along with the plan is produced as Ext. P7 wherein it is stated that the property is lying as "purayidam" and it is surrounded by converted dry lands. The petitioner later understood that, in the data bank prepared by the LLMC under
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
