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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Gracy Varghese, W/o.Dr.K.P.Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 18591 of 2017
Decided on : 15-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam
For the Respondent: Smt. Resmitha R. Chandran, G

Point of Law: Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was issued by the Government of Kerala under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at a time when India was facing food grain deficit and there were some restrictions on the inter-state movement of food grain.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 - Entire properties are lying as converted land - Seeking permission to use their property for other purposes other than for cultivation - Application for removal of those properties - Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop - Petitioners are absolute owners of properties admeasuring Village obtained by them as per Sale Deed No Block Village obtained as per Sale Deed entire properties are lying as converted land, when draft data bank was prepared, properties Village were mistakenly shown as 'nilam - applications, which are filed under the KLU Order, prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017, are to be considered by statutory authority in accordance with the procedure and terms and conditions contained in the KLU Order. (Para 6).

Finding of the Court :

KLU Order vests District Collector with ample powers and he is the competent authority to take decision in application filed under the KLU Order. The petitioners have filed Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the second respondent- District Collector. As per Ext.P3 proceedings, the LLMC has already decided to correct properties of the Kumbalam Village belonging to petitioners as converted land. Therefore, needless to say, there was no necessity for the second respondent-District Collector to again forward the representation to LLMC as per Ext.P5, for necessary correction.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

The case of the petitioners is as follows:-

The petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties admeasuring 95.250 cents in Sy.No.78/5 and 28.660 cents in Sy.No.85/2 in Block No.17 in Kumbalam Village obtained by them as per Sale Deed No.513/2006 and 12.350 cents and 10 cents in Sy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village obtained as per Sale Deed Nos.1031/2010 and 5084/2005 respectively of the SRO, Maradu. Though the entire properties are lying as converted land, when the draft data bank was prepared, the properties in Sy.Nos.78/5 and 78/6 of the Kumbalam Village were mistakenly shown as 'nilam'. Also in the new data bank register prepared in the year 2013, the properties were wrongly described as 'nilam', though those were shown as 'purayidam' in the revenue records. On knowing about the mistake, the petitioners submitted Ext.P1 representation before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short 'LLMC') to conduct a site inspection and to correct the mistake in the data bank register. The inaction on the part of the fourth respondent constrained the petitioners to file WP(C) No.10985/2016 and as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.3.2016, this Court directed the LLMC to find out whether the land in question can be classified as paddy land or nilam or wetland as on the date of enactment of the Act 28 of 2008 and if it cannot be classified either as paddy land or nilam or wetland, necessary correction shall be carried out in the draft data bank. In pursuance of Ext.P2 judgment, the LLMC inspected the properties and as per Ext.P3 proceedings, decided to correct the petitioners' properties admeasuring 95.25 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/5 and 22.350 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village as converted land. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order') seeking permission to use their property for other purposes other than for cultivation. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, it was informed by the second respondent District Collector, as per Ext.P5, that the representation was forwarded to LLMC for necessary correction. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition.

2. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9.10.2017 along with other writ petitions, which were filed stating that the properties owned by them, which are not liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been included in the data bank concerned and the prayer in the writ petitions was for appropriate direction for removal of the same. The said writ petitions were disposed of directing the LLMC under the statute to consider the application for removal of those properties from the data bank in the manner indicated therein. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, was concerning the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the KLU order in considering the application preferred by the petitioners under clause 6 of the KLU order, since there was already a report by the LLMC.

3. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed R.P No. 49/2018 before this Court for review of the Judgment dated 09.10.2017. This Court found that the property of the petitioners in the writ petition is not one included in the data bank prepared under the Act and the writ petition preferred by the petitioners should not have been disposed of along with the batch of writ petitions. Thus the review Petition was allowed and the common judgment, in so far as it relates to WP (C) No.18591 of 2007 was recalled.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The petitioners submit that the properties of the petitioners were decided to be corrected by the LLMC as converted land and Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 under clause 6 of the KLU Ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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