C.A.Soman Vs. the District Collector - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY,THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4075 of 2014 (H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.A.SOMAN, AGED75YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHANKUTTY, ADHEENA, PERIKAPALAM KIZHAKKE KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM-682011.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM-682030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 4075 of 2014 (H) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.1547/56 DATED208.1956 OF EDAPPALLLY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.2872/13(1) ISSUED BY3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED305/2013. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.RA(1) 55174/11/DPI/D.DIS DATED162/2012. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANDAPER EXTRACT ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE LIST. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED2610/2013. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3 7317/13 DATED16/13 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR. EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DISCLOSING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED31/04 SUBMITTD BY PETITIONER BEFORE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 1 Hectre 13 Ares and 51 Sq.Mts comprised in different re-survey numbers in Thrikkakara village. According to the petitioner, the said land is neither a 'paddy land', nor a 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2 (xviii) of Act 28 of 2008, though it has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the Revenue Authorities for effecting correction in the BTR, it did not turn to be fruitful. Hence this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the property has been described as 'nilam' in basic tax register, it has been entered as 'purayidam' in Thandaper register. It is stated that in the Draft Data Bank published by the respondents, the property of the petitioner is described as 'converted land' as discernible from Ext. P6. In the Fair Value Register, the petitioner's property is shown as residential plot with private road access, as borne by Ext. P7. The W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014 :

2. : learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conducting an inspection, the concerned Agricultural Officer has certified that the property concerned is a converted land as early as in the year 2004 vide Ext. P8. Ext. P9 letter of the additional Tahasildar is also to the effect that the property concerned is a converted land. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner has preferred Ext. P11 representation before the first respondent, producing all the relevant documents, for reclassification of land, the same is still to be considered. Hence the Writ Petition.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. The law has been declared as per the decision rendered in JafarKhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC523 that the provisions of the Conservation of Kerala paddy land and Wet land Act are applicable only in respect of the land which were lying as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT617 that, if the property concerned is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land', the application if any preferred, is to be considered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party to make W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014 :

3. : use of the property for any purpose other appropriate purpose. It has been further made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Vs, Killimangalam Panchal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka Smooham (2012 (4) KLT511 that the land reclaimed prior to the commencement of the relevant Act can be made use of, even for 'Industrial purpose'. It has been declared by this Court as per the decision reported in 2014 (1) KLT198(Ruby Soney Vs. State of Kerala] that where the land is reclaimed prior to the commencement of Act 28 of 2008, there is no need to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to get sanction to construct residential building and the application if any preferred is to be considered under the relevant provisions of Kerala Land Utilization Order.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext. P11 application preferred by the petitioner in the light of above observations in the decisions cited supra and also with reference to Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of application as above. W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014 :

4. : The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd