Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
Ratheesh T.M., S/o. Radhakrishnan Nair - Appellant
Versus
The Agricultural Officer - Respondents
WP(C) No. 11114 of 2023
Decided on : 12-03-2025
(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A - The decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to include the petitioner's property in the Data Bank was quashed due to lack of notice and violation of natural justice principles. The property was originally not included in the Data Bank, indicating prior authority's findings. (Paras 8 , 10 , 12 )
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that parties affected by decisions must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially when such decisions have civil consequences. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased property not included in the Data Bank and sought a building permit. After objections arose regarding its classification as paddy land, the LLMC decided to include it in the Data Bank without notice to the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the LLMC's decision was arbitrary and illegal due to the absence of notice and opportunity for the petitioner to contest the inclusion of his property in the Data Bank.
Issues: The main issues were whether the LLMC could include the property in the Data Bank without notice to the petitioner and the legality of such a decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the LLMC's decision violated the principles of natural justice, as it affected the petitioner's rights without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of quashing the LLMC's decision to include the property in the Data Bank.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is the owner in possession a property having an extent of 3.7403 Ares comprised in Survey No.62/4 (renumbered as 62/28) of Chelannur Village, Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 16.02.2021.
2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the said property after being convinced of the fact that the property was not included in the Data Bank. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner applied for a building permit for constructing a residential building, and after processing the said application, the 7th respondent granted Ext.P8 building permit. However, as certain objections were raised with regard to the same, in view of the fact that property remained as paddy land in the revenue records, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application in Form 6 on 28.01.2022. While the said application was pending consideration, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 notice by the Secretary to the 7th respondent, requiring the petitioner to show cause why the building permit granted to him shall not be cancelled. The reason mentioned in Ext.P10 was that, as per the report of the Convenor of Local Level Monitoring Committee/Agricultural Officer, it was decided by the LLMC to include the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank as paddy land.
3. An objection to the same was submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P11. In the meantime, challenging Ext.P10, W.P(C) No.15346/2022 was filed by the petitioner before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition due to a wrong advise, the petitioner submitted a Form 5 application under the impression that the property was already included in the Data Bank. This Court disposed of W.P(C) No.15346/2022 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the Form 5 application within a time frame. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat in W.P(C) No.15346/2022, a certificate dated 07.02.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Officer, was produced, wherein it was mentioned that, in the meeting of LLMC convened on 01.02.2022, they have taken a decision to include the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank and since the writ petition was pending, notification to that effect has not been published. Ext P13 in this writ petition is the said certificate.
4. Now this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, mainly challenging Ext.P13 and also seeking a declaration that the decision of the LLMC to include the property of the petitioner in Data Bank is arbitrary and illegal.
The incidental reliefs were also sought in the writ petition.
5. A statement has been submitted by the 4th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein, it is averred that the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected as per Annexure R4(a) order, holding that the property of the petitioner is not liable to be excluded from the Bank.
6. A counter affidavit was also submitted by the Panchayat, incorporating averments and justifying the stand taken by them, as far as the proposal to reject building permit is concerned. According to them, Ext.P10 was issued on the basis of the intimation given by the Agricultural Officer to the effect that the property is decided to be included in the Data Bank.
7. Heard Sri.K.A. Mohamed Haris, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel 7th respondent.
8. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, under no circumstances the decision taken by the LLMC to include the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank, can be justified. According to him, when the Data Bank was prepared originally, the property was not included and that itself indicates that, the authorities concerned were convinced of the nature of the proper
The inclusion of property in the Data Bank without notice violates natural justice principles, affecting the owner's rights.
The court affirmed the necessity of following statutory procedures for data inclusion, emphasizing that the authority to manage the Data Bank lies solely with the designated Committee under the Act.
Land classification for building permits must reflect its actual condition and use, overriding outdated revenue designations under relevant environmental laws.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a property covered by a previous order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order should not have been included in the data bank prepared unde....
The Local Level Monitoring Committee lacks authority to reinstate properties in the data bank, necessitating re-evaluation by the District Collector.
The Authorised Officer lacks jurisdiction to dictate the inclusion of land in the data bank without due process under the relevant Act and Rules.
The classification of land as 'paddy or wetland' must be based on independent assessment and actual conditions, not solely on subordinate reports or revenue records.
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
