Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20231
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
ABDUL WAHAB – Appellant
Versus
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10916/2016
Property conversion prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act allows for alternative land use following proper permissions.
Headnote:
Paddy - Land Utilization - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 - The court addressed the use of properties originally classified as paddy land but converted prior to the Act, emphasizing the need for permission from authorities for alternative uses.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, whose properties are classified as paddy land, sought permission to utilize them for other purposes, claiming that they had converted their fields before the enactment of the 2008 Act. They faced issues in obtaining building permits and corrections in revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court instructed that the Local Level Monitoring Committees must verify the conversion of the petitioners' lands prior to the Act before determining the applications for permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
Issues: Whether the properties of the petitioners, originally classified as paddy fields, can be utilized for other purposes despite being classified as paddy land in revenue records post-enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the properties were converted prior to the Act, the Act's provisions do not apply, and the petitioners are entitled to use the properties after obtaining necessary permissions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to relevant authorities to verify property status and process permission requests accordingly.
JUDGMENT
The properties of the petitioners referred to in the writ petitions were though paddy fields originally, it is stated that the same have been converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since their properties are described as paddy land in the revenue records, they are unable to make use of the same for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the applications preferred by the petitioners therein for building permits are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 2 alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. In most of the writ petitions, the specific case of the petitioners is that their properties are shown as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. In the remaining writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that their properties are not shown as paddy land in the Data Banks. The petitioners, therefore, preferred applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. The applications preferred by the petitioners in this connection are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to grant permission sought for by them to make use of the properties for other purposes. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 3 properties in the revenue records also. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are mistakes in the draft and final Data Banks published under the Act and by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the Local Level Monitoring Committees are authorised to carry out appropriate corrections in the Data Banks. According to the learned Government Pleader, before granting the permission sought for by the petitioners, it has to be ensured that the properties involved in these matters are W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 4 not properties which are liable to be included in the Data Banks.
4. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep ( 2015(1) KLT 984 ). If the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order [SeePuthan Purakkal Joseph v.Sub Collector ( 2015(3) KLT 182 )]. In Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer ( 2017(3) KLT 822 ), this Court has dealt with the scope of the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in dealing with the applications for permission preferred for use of the properties for other purposes.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are W.P.C).Nos. 10916 of 2016 5 disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy, by calling for reports from the Conveners of
