Allowed

Bindu.M. Philip George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014WP(C)/2860/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, to consider the petitioner's application to alter land classification and pass orders within two months following a hearing. The directive relied on the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and cited precedents regarding land reclamation and usage permissions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Bindu.M. Philip George Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2860 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINDU.M. PHILIP GEORGE,D/O.PHILIP GEORGE, MUNDAKKAPILLIL HOUSE,KOOTHATTUKULAM KARA, KOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SARAMMA GEORGE,W/O.LATE PHILIP GEORGE, DO. DO.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, O/O.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR,MEENCHIL TALUK, PALA.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 2860 of 2014 (F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1300/89.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALA.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23/1/2014 BEFORE TRHE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C).No.2860 of 2014

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014

¶37

¶38

Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of property

¶39

having extent of 36.40 ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.201/2 (old Sy.No.272/2/1, 272/1/1, 272/5/1, 272/3/1, 272/4/1 of Veliyannoor village Meenachil Taluk. Though the property is lying as garden land with age old trees, the property is described as nilam in the revenue records. The petitioner has filed an application to change the nature the properties in the revenue records as per Exts.P4 and P6.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014

¶41

(1) KLT 161) , to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008

¶42

W.P.(C).No.2860 of 2014

¶43

¶44

(for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.

¶45

The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the “KLUO”) to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other

¶46

purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2)

¶47

KHC 499] held as follows:

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C).No.2860 of 2014

¶50

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

¶51

In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case ( supra ) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

¶52

5. In Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner

¶53

[2014 (1) KLT 706], it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.

¶54

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd

¶55

W.P.(C).No.2860 of 2014

¶56

¶57

respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 within a period of two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶58

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶59

Sd/

¶60

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶61

jm/

¶62

W.P.(C).No.2860 of 2014

¶63