Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13400
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
SURESHBABU P.S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) 36928/2024
P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI, DIVYA C BALAN
The current owner of property retains rights and benefits from prior orders confirming its status, despite subsequent administrative classifications.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27
(C) - Property ownership and rights - The petitioner, as the owner of property previously reclaimed and confirmed by Ext.P3, is entitled to the benefits of that order despite the property being included in the Data Bank - The 3rd respondent's order cannot be ignored in processing the petitioner's application. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10)
(B) Legal standing - The petitioner, having purchased the property legally, steps into the shoes of the predecessor in interest and retains all rights associated with the property. (Paras 7, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns property previously confirmed as non-paddy land by the 3rd respondent. An application for changing property assessment was denied based on Data Bank inclusion, prompting this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Ext.P3, and the 4th respondent must process the application for changing the property description within one month.
Issues: Whether the denial of benefits from Ext.P3 to the petitioner is justifiable given the inclusion of the property in the Data Bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 3rd respondent's order confirming the property as non-paddy land cannot be disregarded, and the petitioner retains rights as the current owner.
Result: Writ petition disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.83 Ares of property comprised in the Survey No.265/3-6 of Palakuzha Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. The said property was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 10.02.2022.
2. Earlier, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 before the 3rd respondent, as early as on 13.12.2021. The said application was submitted in view of the fact that, the property was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, eventhough the same was not included in the Data Bank. The said application was considered by the 3rd respondent and it resulted in Ext.P3, by which, the same was allowed. In Ext.P3 order, a specific finding was entered into, to the effect that the property owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , and the property was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008.
3. Ext.P3 order was passed after being convinced of the said fact, by permitting the petitioner to reclaim the said land. In the meantime, the petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 document. Therefore, being the owner and occupant of the property, and the person competent to enjoy the benefits as per Ext.P3 order, he submitted an application before the Tahasildar (Land Records), the 4th respondent herein for changing the assessment of property. However, while processing the said application, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner on the reason that, the property was included in the Data Bank, and therefore, the Form 6 application was declined. In these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction or to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 application within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, order or direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents’ extent the order of conversion of property in favour of the Petitioner which is confirmed already on the erstwhile owners of the property as per Exhibit P3 order.
iii. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case”.
4. I have heard Sri.P.D.Subrahmanian Nampoothiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K., learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether it is justifiable on the part of the respondents to deny the benefits of Ext.P3 order, passed by the 3rd respondent on the application submitted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in Form 6. It is true that, in the subsequent notices, it is stated that the property is included in the Data Bank and, therefore, the Form 6 application cannot be considered.
6. However, the crucial aspect to be noted in this regard is that, in Ext.P3, a specific finding was entered into by the 3rd respondent to the effect that the property does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, and that it was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008. Since it is an order passed in exercise of the statutory powers vested upon the 3rd respondent, the same cannot be ignored, while processing the application submitted by the petitioner for the consequential benefits of the said application.
7. It is true that Ext.P3 order was passed in favor of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, but that would not preclude the petitioner from enjoying the benefits of the same. This is because, by virtue of the purchase of the said property by following the legal procedure contemplated in this regard, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, and therefore, all the rights and liabilities attached with the property are available and applicable to the petitioner. The possession of law in this regard is already sett
