Allowed

Omana v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad

Kerala HC22 Sept 2017WP(C)/9546/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that properties converted to garden land before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act are exempt from the Act's restrictions. The petitioner is entitled to use the land for other purposes after obtaining permission under the Land Utilisation Order, and authorities cannot rely on Circular No.46848/P1/2016.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent was directed to pass orders on the Ext.P6 application within one month, complying with the Land Utilisation Order without being untrammelled by Government Circular No.46848/P1/201

Omana Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/31ST BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9546 of 2017 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

OMANA,

¶8

W/O LATE BHASKARAN, AGED:59 YEARS, BHASKARAN NILAYAM, MANIYANKAD LANE,

¶9

KOPPAM, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.K.J.ANITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶13

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 3 VILLAGE, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 9546 of 2017 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

----------------------EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 5900/1994 OF S.R.O. PALAKKAD. EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 5950/2016 OF S.R.O. PALAKKAD EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 3/1/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT. P5 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND ALSO THAT OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 17/2/2017

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

W.P.(C).No.9546 of 2017-P.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2017.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner owns an item of property. Though the same was converted as a garden land several years back, the same is still shown as paddy field in the revenue records. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P6 application invoking Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) for making use of the property for other purposes and the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P6 application is the grievance voiced in the writ petition. The specific case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner is not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (the Act) and that therefore, she is entitled to use the property for other purposes after obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Land Utilisation Order.

¶34

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this

¶35

¶36

WP.(C).No.9546/2017-P.

¶37

Court on 21.03.2017, a report has been filed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act to the effect that the property of the petitioner is not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act.

¶38

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

¶39

If the property of the petitioner is one 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 do not apply to the property of the petitioner, she is e ntitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶40

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P6 application, in the light of the decision of this Court in

¶41

WP.(C).No.9546/2017-P.

¶42

¶43

Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) , within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. This shall be done having regard to the fact that the property is not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. Since the restrictions imposed by the Government in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala), have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order has been granted, the petitioner will be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the land as garden land and if such a request is made by the petitioner, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of

¶44

WP.(C).No.9546/2017-P.

¶45

¶46

Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month thereafter.

¶47

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶48

Kvs/-

¶49

// true copy //