Disposed

K.a.Sebastian v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017WP(C)/4446/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of connected writ petitions by permitting petitioners to file applications in the prescribed form before Local Level Monitoring Committees for correction of Data Bank entries. It directed committees to consider applications after obtaining KSRSEC reports, and mandated authorities to process land utilization permits free from certain circulars.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file applications in prescribed form before Local Level Monitoring Committees for Data Bank corrections, with direction to obtain KSRSEC reports and consider requests under Keral

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4446 of 2017 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. K.A.SEBASTIAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. ESTHAPPANOSE, KALLUNGAL, CHERUMATTAPUZHAKKARAYIL, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,

¶8

THRIKKAKARA P.O., COCHIN.

¶9

2. K.C.RAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. CYRIL, KALIYATHU VEETIL, NJALAKAM KARAYIL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. DR. JAIN SEBASTIAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, PAYIKKAT, PARIJATHAM ROAD, NJALAKAM KARAYIL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶14

2. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KAKKANAD 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.

¶15

3. CONVENER/PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶16

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶17

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.ANANDAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 31642 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 4446 of 2017 (E)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 09-09-2015 PERTAINING TO PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NOS.698/2, 698/4, 699/6, 699/7, 699/8 AND 700/3 IN BLOCK NO.9 OF KAKKANAD VILLAGE.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12-05-2011 BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07-12-2015 TO DRAFT DATA BANK BY 1ST PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE CATEGORIZATION OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN RE-SURVEY NOS.699/6, 699/7, 699/8 AND 700/3 OF KAKKANAD VILLAGE.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-01-2016 IN W.P(C).NO. 595/2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION IN THIS REGARD WITH APPENDED COPY OF CORRECTED DATA BANK DATED 20-10-2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19-01-2017 SEEKING PERMISSION FOR UTILIZATION OF PROPERTIES FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶35

--------------------------------------------

¶36

W.P.(C).Nos.4446, 31642, 34803,

¶37

35069, 35104, 35125, 35314, 35326, 35336, 35343, 35344, 35346, 35352, 35359, 35361, 35372, 35387 & 35395 of 2017

¶38

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶39

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as

¶42

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 2 :

¶43

garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in

¶44

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 3 :

¶45

the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. 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.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶47

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

¶48

Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the

¶49

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 4 :

¶50

mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶51

The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the applications preferred by some of the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank as referred to in the writ petition are not in the prescribed form.

¶52

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form, wherever such applications are not filed, before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with copies of the judgment

¶53

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 5 :

¶54

and the writ petition, the same shall be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in cases where applications in the prescribed form have already been filed, and within three months from the date of receipt of the applications, in other cases. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization

¶55

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 6 :

¶56

Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra), untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under

¶57

W.P.(c).No.4446 of 2017 & con. cases : 7 :

¶58

Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests.

¶59

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶60

rsr

K.a.Sebastian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Sebastian v. the District Collector

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

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

Soman Karunakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Pramod Das Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Abdul Lathief, Vs State of Kerala