Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14232
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
DR B SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 33067/2014
Lands converted prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act are exempt from its restrictions and can be modified via proper legal channels.
Headnote:
Conversion - Land Utilization - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, 2008 - Sections 2, 5(4); Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 - Summary: The court interpreted provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act 2008, establishing that lands converted prior to the Act's commencement are not subject to its restrictions, permitting the petitioner to seek necessary rectifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims their property, converted in 1997, is still recorded as 'nilam' in official registers. Despite evidence of conversion, the property is mistakenly categorized as paddy land, according to the Data Bank and Basic Tax Register.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the property was converted before the enactment of the Paddy Land Act 2008, it should not be categorized as paddy land, thereby allowing the petitioner to pursue corrections in official records.
Issues: Whether the property can be corrected in the Basic Tax Register and Data Bank given its conversion predating the Paddy Land Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that properties converted before the enactment of the Paddy Land Act 2008 are not subject to its classifications and can be rectified through proper procedures established.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is disposed of with directions regarding property reclassification.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's property, which was converted long back, is shown as 'nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and the Data Bank notified for the area also shows it as 'nilam'. The petitioner's contention is that the said land having an extent of 35 Ares 25 sq. meter equivalent to 1 Acre 1 cent in Block No.200 in Re-Survey No.5/4 (old Survey No.36/5) of Changanacherry Village was the subject matter of a suit between the petitioner and his relatives. The suit was decreed against the petitioner and the petitioner was in appeal, which appeal had been settled on the basis of a compromise evident from Ext.P2. The other parties to the suit had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner, which is indicated at Ext.P3, in pursuance to the compromise entered into in the suit.
The petitioner contends that as early as in 1997, the petitioner's property was converted, after obtaining permission from the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. But the same still remains to be nilam in the BTR and has been now indicated as paddy land in the Data Bank notified.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also points to Ext.P4 to contend that when the suit was filed, the petitioner had made an application before the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Changanacherry for a certified copy of the permission granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. However, the Tahsildar had replied to such application vide Ext.P4, that the said certificate has to be obtained from the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. This Court had specifically directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no such order available in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. In any event, the order claimed by the petitioner is of the year 1997. Despite the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on verification, it is also indicated in Ext.P4 that the petitioner had in fact made an application in the year 1997 and the same was recommended by a communication No.E2/5577/ 1997/K.Dis. dated 15.07.1997. The petitioner asserts the fact that the entire land has been converted long back. The same is evident also from Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer, Changanachery. A statement is also seen to have been filed by the 6th respondent, the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, pursuant to the direction of this Court, after inspection of the property, which reads as under:
“3. As directed by this Honourable Court vide interim order dated 09.12.2014, the Agricultural Officer who is the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, inspected the property owned by the petitioner. On inspection it is found that the above said property is converted Paddy Land. There is compound wall on three sides of the above said property. On inspection it is found that around 8 Teak trees and other trees are found in the property. On inspection and enquiry, it is understood that the above said property was converted before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008 and the above said land was not suitable for paddy cultivation at the time of commencement of the Act. The property is mistakenly shown as paddy land in the draft data bank. S per Rule 4(2)(b) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules only the Local Level Monitoring Committee has power to correct the entry in the draft data bank. Petitioners/land owners have not submitted any application before Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct the description of the property in the draft data bank.”
4. In such circumstances, the inclusion of the petitioner's property in the Data Bank is found to be not proper. The subject property is not a land, which could be included under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act , 2008, since the same was converted long prior to 2008.
5. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the
