Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33398
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
SAHAJAN M.E. – Appellant
Versus
THE REVEUNE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR) – Respondent
WP(C)/9996/2020
SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SHRI.MUHAMMED SIYAD P.P.
Property owners retain rights to utilize land for non-agricultural purposes without facing regulatory hurdles once prior approvals are established, despite subsequent legal amendments.
Headnote:
Land - Property Rights - Kerala Land Utilization Order - KLU Order 1967, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 - The court examined the application of these acts and concluded that the petitioners' attempts to reclaim or convert the land were valid as per previous judgments, holding that the restrictions under the KLU Order did not apply, thereby affirming the petitioners' right to seek re-assessment and beneficial enjoyment of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed rights over a property previously owned, asserting it had been converted from paddy land to garden land before the KLU Order took effect. Following various rulings, they sought a reassessment of the property's classification to reflect its current use.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were obliged to seek orders under the 2008 Act and pay fees for reassessment of the property previously deemed paddy land under the KLU Order.
Ratio Decidendi: Rights over land, once established by clear findings, cannot be re-agitated without substantial new evidence; existing judgments confirm land use alterations, negating the need for further approvals.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, affirming the petitioners' rights and instructing the Tahsildar to reassess the property accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Since the petitioners’ claim that the subject property involved in both these cases is covered by the same proceedings issued by the respondent – RDO in terms of Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and as the issues raised in both these cases are the same and as the two petitioners herein claim to be the successors in interest of the previous owners, who obtained the benefit of Exts.P3 and P4 orders as well as the judgments of this Court as per Exts.P5 and P6 judgments in W.P.(C.) No.9996/2020 and as the issue is already covered by Ext.P8 judgments in both cases, these matters are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.
2. The documents marked as Exts.P1 to P4 are the same in both the W.P.(C.)s. Exts. P5, P6, P7 and P8 in W.P.(C) No.9996/2020 are marked as Exts. P8, P9, P10 and P12 respectively in W.P.(C.) No.9335/2020. Exts.P9, P10 and P11 in the W.P.(C.) No.9996/2020 are broadly similar to Exts.P13, P14 and P15 respectively in W.P.(C.) No.9335/2020. The documents as marked in W.P.(C.) No. 9996/2020 will be referred to in this judgment unless indicated to the contrary.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject property owned by the petitioners in these two cases are covered by registered document No.1420 dated 26.5.2005 (referred to in page No.2 of Ext.P3). The case of the petitioners is that the subject properties while it was in the ownership and possession of the previous owners, though described as nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register, was converted as garden land/purayidam long prior to 4.7.1967 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Utilization Order ). That apart, the predecessor has also obtained Ext.P5 building permit for constructing commercial building (referred in W.P.(C.) No.9335/2020). That the predecessor had obtained Ext.P1 building permit dated 11.8.2005 for constructing the compound wall to the property. That thereupon, certain complaints were raised that the predecessor was taking steps to unlawfully reclaim or convert the paddy land and the matter was referred to the 1st respondent-RDO for conservation of action under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order . The matter in regard to those allegations were initially placed before the conservation of the District Collector, who in turn had referred the matter to the 1st respondent –RDO for examination of the matter. The 1st respondent –RDO after conducting a detailed and exhaustive enquiry, found that the property has been converted quite some time ago. Further, it was found that no paddy or other food crops have been cultivated there for quite some time. The 1st respondent –RDO has also categorically found in the said enquiry that there was no material to come to the conclusion that the subject property was utilized continuously 3 years for cultivation of food crops, immediately before the commencement of the KLU order, 1967 viz., 4.7.1967 or at any time after the commencement of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967. Accordingly, the 1st respondent-RDO further ordered that the subject property will not come in the purview of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967 and that therefore no restriction under the KLU order, 1967 could be pressed into service as against the land owners as regards their beneficial enjoyment of the land in question.
4. Accordingly, the 1st respondent-RDO has passed Ext.P3 proceedings dated 21.3.2006, with the abovesaid conclusive findings. An aggrieved party had challenged Ext.P3 order dated 21.3.2006 issued by the 1st respondent-RDO under Rule 11 of the KLU Order, 1967 before the Commissioner for Land Revenue. After detailed consideration, the Commissioner for Land Revenue has issued Ext.P4 appellate order dated 19.4.2007, with a finding that the factual findings made by the 1st respondent-RDO in Ext.P3 are correct and tenable and that no interference is called for as against Ext.P3 order and has also ordered that Ext.P3 order passed by the RDO will stand upheld
