Allowed

State of Kerala v. P.K.Aliyar

Kerala HC17 Mar 2016WA/651/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Single Judge's order quashing a District Collector's refusal to regularise land conversion. Aligning with the Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep, the Court held the Collector is the competent authority and cannot bypass statutory procedures. The right to approach the competent authority for regularisation under amended Section 3A of the 2008 Act is reserved.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition and disposed of the writ appeal by reserving right to approach the competent authority.

State of Kerala Vs P.K.Aliyar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 651 of 2015 () IN WP(C).24621/2014

¶7

------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24621/2014 DATED 20-10-2014

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) :-

¶9

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (LAND REVENUE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶11

CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 692 030.

¶12

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) :-

¶14

P.K.ALIYAR,

¶15

S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, POOVATHUNGAL HOUSE, THANDEKKAD MUDIKKAL P.O., VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 547.

¶16

BY SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-032016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

jvt

¶19

W.A. No.651 OF 2015

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES :-

¶22

ANNEXURE I :- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.2.2013 IN SLP No.22856/2011.

¶23

ANNEXURE II:- TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 26.7.2013 FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶24

ANNEXURE III:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.21.4.2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.4858/2014 ARISING OUT OF SLP No.22856/2011.

¶25

ANNEXURE IV:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.2749/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :-

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶29

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

W.A. No.651 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 17^th day of March 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Shaffique, J.

¶34

This writ appeal has been filed by the State and its authorities challenging the judgment dated 20.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.24621 of 2014.

¶35

We have heard the Additional Advocate General as well

¶36

as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶37

The writ petition was filed seeking for the following

¶38

reliefs :-

¶39

“(i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶40

(ii) declare that the land having an extent of 181 cents in Sy.Nos.173/13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block No.21 of Vengola Village is a purayidom and petitioner is entitled to enjoy the land as purayidom (dry land).

¶41

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to grant permission for conversion of the said 181 cents of land in Sy.Nos. 173/13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block No.21 of Vengola Village under the Clause 6(2) of Land Utilization Order, 1967.”

¶42

Ext.P6 is an order passed by the District Collector on 25.8.2014, by which, it was observed that the application under provisions of the

¶43

W.A. No.651 of 2015

¶44

-: 2 :-

¶45

Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 cannot be considered nor can the District Collector ratify the change already made.

¶46

In fact, this issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 98 (SC)]. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgment held as under :-

¶47

“ 20. By the perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the rectification of mistake narrated in Section 18 relates to the apparent mistake on the face of the record in relation to any order passed by the prescribed authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority under the Act. Therefore, the rectification of mistake can only be in respect of proceedings or orders passed by the original authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority.

¶48

21. Statutory enquiry to ascertain whether the land is a “Paddy Land” or “Wetland” and conversion of the land for residential purpose or for any public purpose is governed by K.L.U.Order or the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 for conversion of the land from “Nilam” (Wetland) to 'Purayidam' (Dry Land). The concerned authorities constituted under K.L.U. Order or Kerala Wetland Act 2008 are the competent authority. Nature of the land cannot be changed or converted by directing changes in the Basic Tax Register which is maintained only for the purpose of land tax. The rectification envisaged by Section 18 of Kerala Land Tax Act can only be in respect of arithmetical or clerical error, that too in the order of determining the tax due. Section 18 cannot be made use

¶49

W.A. No.651 of 2015

¶50

-: 3 :-

¶51

or the same cannot be taken as a means to effect conversion of the nature of the land bye-passing the competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the K.L.U. Order, 1967 and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.”

¶52

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition observing that as the petitioner has already put up an industrial building, it is a fit case in which permission can be granted. In fact, in Ext.P6 order, the District Collector had observed that the relief sought is not for conversion but for regularisation of a conversion already done. Therefore he cannot exercise jurisdiction. The request of the petitioner for regularisation of the conversion was for availing a loan for an industrial unit put up by him in the property.

¶53

The District Collector having already exercised the discretion in the matter and he is the competent authority to take a decision as held by the Apex Court in Jalaja Dileep (supra), we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in disposing of the writ petition by quashing Ext.P6. However, amendment has been made to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2008 Act') by which the Government had decided to regularise illegal conversion made prior to 2008 Act coming into force on certain

¶54

W.A. No.651 of 2015

¶55

-: 4 :-

¶56

conditions. We make it clear that it shall be open for the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking the said reliefs as per Section 3A of the 2008 Act, if so advised.

¶57

In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and reserving right to the writ petitioner/respondent to approach the competent authority, in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶59

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶60

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Jvt/18.3.2016

State of Kerala v. P.K.Aliyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. P.K.Aliyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs B.Sasidharan

Vishwambaran a Vs the Authorized Officer

K.Babu Vs the Chairman Ktdc and Another

V.K.Santhosh Vs Syamala.S

Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs P.Honniah and Others

Y.G.Zacharia Vs the Edathua Grama Panchayath