The court established that prior conversion permissions under applicable land utilization laws override simplistic land descriptions in official records.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent (styled as a notice) directing the petitioner to restore the land in question to its original position (as paddy land), failing which the same would be done by the official machinery at the cost of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 50 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.208/7 (old No.465) of Cheranelloor Village as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 13.08.1999. The petitioner have purchased the land from one Mary @ Mary Grace Plakal, wife of Davis. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land of 50 cents was a part of about 1.86 acres of land in old Sy.No.464/10 and 465/2 belonging to one Thomas, son of Cheekku. By the registered document no.3322/1999 of SRO, Ernakulam, the aforesaid Thomas had sold the aforesaid 50 cents of land to Mary @ Mary Grace Plakal, who in turn executed Ext.P1 sale deed in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had obtained permission under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to convert about 1.86 acres of land of which the aforesaid 50 cents form a part and converted the paddy land into garden land. However, later, the petitioner received Ext.P3 notice, by which he was asked to restore the land to its original position. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

4. Though the property made mention of in Ext.P1 was described as paddy field, it is evident from Ext.P2 that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had obtained permission from the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to convert the land; and accordingly, the same was converted into garden land. This Court inShahanaz Shukkoor vs.Chelannur Grama Panchayat [ 2009 (3) KLT 899 ] has observed that the mere description of an item of property as 'Nilam' (paddy field) or wetland, in the revenue records, is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those for which a paddy field or wetland can be used.

5. In the light of Ext.P2 permission already granted to the predecessor-in-interest, it can be safely presumed that the description of the property in Ext.P1 was transcribed by the document writer from the previous title deed. It appears that while issuing Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner, the aforesaid question has escaped the attention of the authority, who issued Ext.P3. However, in the light of the fact that Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner is pending before the 1st respondent, this Court is of the definite view that the matter requires a re-look by the 1st respondent.

Therefore, Ext.P3 is quashed.

The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P2 as well as the decision referred to above and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-

The words “as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated

13.08.1999” occurring in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are deleted and the 4th sentence in paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 31.05.2014 in W.P.(C) No.8092/2011 is corrected as “By Registered Document No.3322/1999 of SRO, Ernakulam, produced as Ext.P1, the aforesaid Thomas had sold the aforesaid 50 Cents of Land to Mary @ Mary Grace Plakal who in turn sold the said land to the petitioner.”

vide order dated 05.04.2016 in I.A 1998/2016 in W.P.(C) No.8092/2011(J).