The court emphasized the necessity for proper application of mind by the LLMC when considering land exclusions from the data bank under the relevant act.

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

Smt.E.V.Bhanumathi Antharjanam, the appellant herein, instituted O.S. No. 61/2000 for specific performance in the year 2000 in respect of 44 cents of land in resurvey No.163/4 of Hosdurg Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District. She was successful in the suit. Finally, the matter was carried before this Court by the defendants in the suit in R.F.A. No. 347/2004. In the suit, a compromise was entered into. Smt.E.V.Bhanumathi Antharjanam agreed to pay Rs.66,00,000/- as consideration in place of the original consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly, a compromise was arrived at in a mediation. Accordingly, the compromise was filed before this Court. This court, by judgment dated 28.01.2016, disposed of the matter in terms of the compromise.

2. Pursuant to the compromise, a document was executed in favour of Smt.E.V.Bhanumathi Antharjanam on 11.04.2016. Thus, Smt.E.V.Bhanumathi Antharjanam became the full owner.

3. The present issue started after the purchase. The land was recorded as a “nilam” in the data bank. The data bank was prepared pursuant to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Hereinafter referred to as the “Act 28 of 2008”). This Act came into force with effect from 12.08.2008. The appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 16898/2017 challenging the inclusion of the land in the data bank. This Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2017, directed the LLMC to consider the matter and pass orders. The LLMC refused to exclude the land from the data bank. The appellant, Smt. E.V. Bhanumathi Antharjanam approached this Court again in W.P.(C)No.24613/2018. This Court vide judgment dated 13.08.2018, directed the LLMC to reconsider the matter after obtaining a report from KSRSEC. Again, the LLMC refused to exclude the land. The appellant once again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12472/2020. This Court again vide judgment dated 08.07.2021, directed the LLMC to consider the matter afresh after referring to the satellite data and materials relied on by the appellant. The LLMC reiterated its stand. This is how a fresh writ petition has been filed before this Court challenging the decision of the LLMC. The learned single judge, who heard the matter, affirmed the decision of the LLMC. In this appeal, the above judgment of the learned Single Judge is questioned.

4. In the appeal, we suo motu impleaded Hosdurg Municipality in the party array as the land is reportedly located in the heart of the Hosdurg Municipality. We passed the following order on 23.10.2025;

“

Having considered the nature of the issue, we are of the view that the Secretary, Kanhangad Municipality can be suo motu impleaded as a party respondent. Accordingly, the Secretary, Kanhandad Municipality is suo motu impleaded as an additional respondent. The Municipality shall state whether the land situated in Re-survey No.163/4 of Hosdurg Village, Hosdurg Taluk, forms part of an area covered by a scheme under the Town Planning Act.

2. Serve notice on the learned Standing Counsel for the Kanhangad Municipality.

3. Show the name of Sri. Arun Kumar A, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kanhangad Municipality in the cause list.

Post on 24.10.2025.”

5. Pursuant to the above, the Secretary of the Kanhangad Municipality filed a report along with a sketch on 04.12.2025, as per the direction of this court on 18.11.2025. It is appropriate to reproduce the sketch in this judgment to understand the real issue involved in this matter. The sketch produced clearly shows that there are buildings on the northern and southern sides of the land owned by the appellant. The land is situated very close to the public road