Disposed

George Jacob v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC13 Nov 2017WP(C)/7954/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners whose properties were recorded as garden lands before the 2008 Act sought permission for construction and correction of revenue entries. The High Court directed authorities to verify if properties were indeed excluded from the Act before granting permissions or permits, and allowed fresh tax assessment requests.

What did the court decide?

Directions to verify property status before granting permissions, enforce inspection by Monitoring Committees, grant building permits/numbers, and consider fresh tax assessments.

George Jacob Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam — Landlord and Tenant | 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 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 7954 of 2017 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE JACOB, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, ONATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.B.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATUNADU - 686 661.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE-683545.

¶14

5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KEEZHILLAM) - 683 545.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.9266/2017 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 7954 of 2017 (T)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT	P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.4.16.
EXHIBIT	P2:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2017.
EXHIBIT	P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.2685/2017.
EXHIBIT	P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28772/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.1.2017.
EXHIBIT	P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.
RESPOND	ENTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(c) Nos.7954, 9266, 9278, 11426, 12289, 12343,

¶28

12403 & 12408 of 2017

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

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 alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. In most of the

¶32

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶33

¶34

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 properties in the revenue records also. Some of the petitioners, among others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned

¶35

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶39

as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

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 not properties which are liable to be included in the Data Banks.

¶41

If the properties of the petitioners are

¶42

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶43

¶44

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 [See Puthan 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.

¶45

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to satisfy, by calling for reports from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring

¶46

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶47

¶48

Committees concerned that the properties involved in these matters are converted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that the same are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. It is also directed that before forwarding the reports, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees shall, along with the Village Officers concerned, inspect the property with notice to the petitioners to satisfy the claim of the petitioners that the properties are not liable to be included in the Data Bank. For the said purpose, the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees are free to call for the particulars of the properties from the petitioners including copies of the title deeds. The reports shall be called for by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order from the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the same shall be forwarded by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees within one month thereafter. If favourable reports are

¶49

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶50

¶51

received, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall p ass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for permission to use their properties for other purposes in the light of the decisions of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) and Shivadasan (supra ), within one month from the date of receipt of the reports. 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 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 cases where they are parties to the writ petitions, in the light of

¶52

WPC 7954/17 & con. cases

¶53

¶54

Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests.

¶55

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶56

bng

George Jacob v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Jacob v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

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

Prasad M.M Vs Dr.a.Kowsigan

M.I.Luvis Vs M.K.Kabeer

Rabiya K.M Vs State of Kerala

Magic Screenz Entertainment Private Limited Vs the Geologist

Suresh.K.R Vs the District Collector, Wayanad

D.Kusumakumari Vs J.Arun Babu