Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., S.MANU, J.
The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector - Appellant
Versus
Jacob Boban, S/o. Boban Jacob - Respondent
WA No. 1061 of 2023
Decided on : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, SHRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPL.G.P.(REVENUE), SHRI.S.RENJITH, SPL. G.P. TO A.A.G
For the Respondent: PEEYUS A. KOTTAM, HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI(K/001502/2018)
Conditions on land utilization permits must not contradict previous judicial classifications and should not frustrate the purpose of the granted permission.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 - Clause 6 - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 - Application for land utilization - The Respondent sought permission to utilize land for construction; imposing a condition to retain a water channel was challenged - The learned Single Judge set aside the condition as it frustrated the purpose of the granted permission - Declarations regarding the nature of land were affirmed, and arbitrary conditions deemed impermissible. (Paras 3, 5, 8)
(B) Legal Principles - A condition imposed that hinders the usage of property for granted purposes is viewed as arbitrary and perverse - The legal classification of land, once settled by court, cannot be disregarded in issuing permits. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Findings of Court - The imposition of conditions in Ext.P12 order was deemed arbitrary and not supported by factual details, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 9)
(D)
Issues: Whether conditions imposed on the granted permission were lawful or undermined prior judicial declarations concerning the land classification. (Paras 6, 8) (E)
Ratio Decidendi: Conditions imposed by authorities must not contradict previous judicial declarations; arbitrary conditions that thwart the essence of granted permissions are impermissible. (Paras 8, 9) (F)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and previous applications regarding land use. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ petition outcomes affecting permissions. (Para 4) |
| 3. clarification on clause 6 applicability post amendment. (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments on conditions imposed by authorities on land use. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. issues regarding conditions that contradict granted permissions. (Para 8) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
The Respondent presently is the owner in possession of 12.95 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.116/7 in Block No.24 of Mulanthuruthy Village. He had owned 17 Ares originally out of which 4.05 Ares was sold in 2019. He had applied under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for permission to utilize the property for other purposes including construction of building, by Ext.P9.
2. The Respondent had approached this Court in W.P. (C)No.4883/2013 aggrieved by a communication from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat by which an application for building permit was refused for the reason that the land was shown as 'paddy land' in the data bank. Ext.P9 application was submitted during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed on 9 January 2018 by declaring that the property of the Respondent was not classifiable either as 'paddy land' or 'wetland' under the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008. The LLMC was directed to exclude the land from data bank. Supplementary directions were also issued.
3. By Ext.P12 proceedings dated 10 January 2019 the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi disposed of Ext.P9 application. Permission was granted for utilising part of the property already reclaimed for non- agricultural purposes. However, a condition was imposed that the water channel in the property should be retained as such. It was stated that if the water channel was filled it may result in blocking of natural draining of water and may adversely affect agricultural operations in the surrounding areas and also may affect the ecosystem.
4. W.P.(C)No.79/2022 was filed challenging Ext.P12 proceedings to the extent it imposes the aforesaid condition. A direction to the Tahsildar to consider Ext.P14 application dated 14 December 2021 for correction in the BTR was also sought. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Ext.P12 to the extent it imposes the condition that the Respondent shall maintain the water channel was set aside. Revenue Authorities were directed to correct the entries in BTR and to describe the property as 'purayidam/parambu/dry land'. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Respondents in the writ petition have filed this appeal.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19 July 2024, made a reference to the Full Bench for considering the legal issue of the impact of incorporation of Section 27A in the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT on the provisions of KLU Order, specifically regarding applications filed under Clause 6. The reference was answered by the Full Bench by order dated 12 September 2024. The Full Bench declared that applications filed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order prior to 30 December 2017 will have to be considered for passing orders under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and all applications submitted after the said date shall be dealt with only under the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT and the Rules made thereunder. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before the Division Bench for consideration.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader Mr.S.Renjith contended that according to Clause 6 of the Land Uitilization Order, 1967, a person can utilise the property for other purposes only in accordance with the terms of a written permission of the District Collector and hence conditions can be imposed while granting permission. He argued that the report of the Agriculture Officer and the decision of LLMC would show that there will be adverse consequences if the entire land is permitted to be filled up. The
