Disposed

K.T.Jamalu, v. District Collector

Kerala HC11 Nov 2019WP(C)/13463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to reconsider the petitioners' application regarding land conversion. The LLMC must obtain satellite images from KSREC to verify if conversion occurred prior to the Paddy Land Act's enforcement on 12/08/2008, rather than relying on current physical conditions or the final Data Bank.

What did the court decide?

Directed the LLMC to reconsider the application after obtaining satellite images from the KSREC for the whole property and place the report before the RDO for final decision.

K.T.Jamalu, Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019(G)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.T.JAMALU, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KALLETHODI HOUSE, VALAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PANDARATHODI HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3 HAMSA C., CHOLAMUKATH HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD, THAZHEKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

4 RABIA, KAKKATTU HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

5 CHANDRAMOHAN P., PANANGAD HOUSE, T.N.PURAMA, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

6 MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

7 ABDU RAHIMAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

8 DEVADAS PANICKER, PALOORKALARICKAL, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

9 P.K.VISHNU, PALOORKALARICKAL, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

10 SAJITHA, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶15

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 2

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA - 676 505.

¶18

2 SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 322.

¶19

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, PULAMANTHOLE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 323.

¶20

4 PULAMANTHOLE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 323.

¶21

5* ADDL.R5.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ.T.P AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.T.P.ABDU, THOTTAMPALLATHU HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30-07-2019 IN IA 1/19.

¶22

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PULAMANTHOLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PULAMANTHOLE.*

¶23

*ADDL.R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11-11-2019.

¶24

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R5 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶25

GP POOJA SURENDRAN

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 3

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶30

impugning Ext.P10 communication issued by the

¶31

Village Officer, Pulamanthole - the 3^rd respondent herein-asking them to cease the construction in their property, comprised of 68.47 cents in Survey No.34/6 of Pulamanthole Village, since the property in question is included as “Nanja” in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short).

¶32

According to the petitioners, they were making the construction validly on the strength of Ext.P8-building permit issued by

¶33

the 4^th respondent-Grama Panchayat and therefore, that the Village Officer had no jurisdiction to intervene and to issue Ext.P10 communication. The petitioners, therefore,

¶34

pray that Ext.P10 be set aside and they be allowed to complete the construction as per Ext.P8.

¶35

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 4

¶36

essential narration of facts made by the petitioners in the pleadings, the fact remains that pending this writ petition several new developments took place, which I deem necessary to record as under.

¶37

At the time when this writ petition

¶38

was considered for admission, it appears that an interim order was issued on 19.06.2019, as per which, a learned Judge of this Court directed that all constructions being made by the petitioners will be confined to 22.5 cents out of 68.47 cents, since it was noticed that the petitioners have obtained an order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) only for that extent through Ext.P4 order.

¶39

However, the 5^th respondent appears to have intervened by filing an impleading petition and to bring to the notice of this Court that, going by the final Data Bank - a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.R5(a), prepared as early as on 23/02/2012, the entire property has been shown as “Nanja”

¶40

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 5

¶41

and not as converted land. The learned Judge noticed that the first interim order was based on Ext.P5-Data Bank, showing the property to have been converted but that it was only a draft one, which had been thereafter finalized through Ext.R5(a). It transpires that on the strength of this order, the Panchayat issued another building permit confining the construction to 22.5 cents, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P14 and that the petitioners continued to make constructions on such basis. This Court, therefore, issued another order on

¶42

14/08/2019, interdicting all further

¶43

constructions, which position, I am told, continues even now.

¶44

From the above it is ineluctable that while the petitioners allege that the entire property comprised of 68.47 cents had been converted much prior to the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act and that they have obtained an order under the KLU Order for 22.5 cents out it; the 5^th respondent maintains with equal vehemence that the entire extent still

¶45

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 6

¶46

remains as “Paddy Land” in the final Data

¶47

Bank, namely Ext.R5(a). The respondent further contends that even if Ext.P4 order had been obtained by the petitioners in the year 2005 under the KLU Order, since they

¶48

themselves concede that they were not able to convert even that extent until the Paddy Land

¶49

Act came into force, the said property can only be construed to be a Paddy Land under the provisions of the said Act and therefore, that no construction can be now made thereon.

¶50

Noticing the afore dialectical

¶51

position of the parties, I asked the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat to explain

¶52

how Exts.P6 & P14 building plans were approved

¶53

and Shri.Krishna Kumar-learned Standing Counsel- submitted that Ext.P6 was issued on a mistaken notion that the Data Bank had excluded the entire property, while Ext.P14 was issued on the basis of an interim order of

¶54

this Court dated 19/06/2019. He, however, candidly confessed that Ext.P6 was on account of an error because the Panchayat had omitted

¶55

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 7

¶56

to note that Ext.P5-Data Bank was only in the

¶57

draft stage and that in Ext.R5(a) Final Data Bank included the entire property as “Paddy Land”. However, as regards Ext.P14, he prayed that this Court may not find any fault against the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, since it was issued strictly in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 19/06/2019 and that it was a bonafide exercise.

¶58

The learned Government Pleader-

¶59

Smt.Pooja Surendran, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that the essential question in this case is whether the property involved is a paddy land or otherwise as on 12/08/2008, being the date on which the Paddy Land Act came into force. She says that, presumably on the application of the petitioners, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) appears to have taken a decision, through Ext.P16, to exclude the

¶60

property from the Data Bank, but she says that this has been done without verifying the satellite images from the Kerala Satellite

¶61

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 8

¶62

Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

¶63

and without examining whether conversion, if any, had been made prior to 12/08/2008.

¶64

further submitted that in the absence of an examination of these factors, the decision of

¶65

the LLMC, namely Ext.P16, cannot be implemented; and that, in any event of the matter, since the Data Bank is now finalized, it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who can take a final decision thereon under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed and the LLMC be directed to look into these matters and place a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) appropriately.

¶66

When I examine the afore, it becomes indubitable that the issues raised in this writ petition are confined to a very narrow compass-as to whether the property now being claimed by the petitioners had been converted, either in full or in part, prior to 12/08/2008

¶67

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 9

¶68

when the Paddy Land Act came into force. Even

¶69

though the petitioners assert that they had obtained Ext.P5 order under the KLU Order from the RDO in the year 2005, the 5^th respondent asserts that this order had not been used by them and that the property had not been converted as on 12/08/2008.

¶70

I find some force in the submissions of Shri.Santhosh Pothuval-learned counsel for the 5^th respondent-because, going by Ext.R5(a) Final Data Bank, the entire property has been included as a “paddy land” therein. This, prima facie, appears to be because the LLMC, after site inspection, may have found that the said property to be remaining as a paddy land even as on the date the Paddy Land Act came into force.

¶71

That being so, it was improper for the Panchayat to have issued Ext.P6-Building Permit, permitting a construction in the entire property of 68.47 cents, but I choose not to say anything further on it on account of the submissions made by Shri.Krishna Kumar

¶72

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 10

¶73

that this was done in error and that they have

¶74

rectified the same by issuing Ext.P14subsequent building permit. However, the question is whether Ext.P14 also can be allowed to operate, particularly, when Ext.R5(a) Final Data Bank includes the entire property-even that has been covered by Ext.P4 order under the KLU Order.

¶75

The legal contention impelled on this issue by Shri.Santhosh Pothuval is that even if somebody obtains an order under the KLU Order, unless the property had been actually converted prior to 12/08/2008, the property will come under the rigor of the Paddy Land Act and no conversion or construction can then be allowed thereon in contravention of the said Act.

¶76

I find some force in this submission because, if the property had not been converted on the date on which the Paddy Land Act came into force and consequently got included in the Data Bank, then obviously the petitioners will have to approach the

¶77

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 11

¶78

competent Authority - be that the LLMC or the

¶79

RDO, as the case may be - for obtaining legitimacy for the conversion, if any, with respect to the said property. Therefore, the question essentially would be whether the property had been physically converted before 12/08/2008 and whether it can then be regularized under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act.

¶80

In the afore perspective, when I examine Ext.P16-opinion of the LLMC, it is noticed that the said Committee has decided to exclude the property of the petitioners to an extent of 22.5 cents without verifying whether it had been converted prior to 12/08/2008.

¶81

They appear to be guided by the physical nature of the property as on today, which obviously would show that it is a converted

¶82

property, because some constructions have already begun based on the interim order, dated 19/06/2019, of this Court and Ext.P14building permit. But the question is whether such conversion was made prior to 12/08/2008

¶83

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 12

¶84

or thereafter.

¶85

This certainly is a matter that the LLMC will have to consider with reference to the satellite images because it is otherwise impossible to ascertain when the property was actually converted.

¶86

When I say this, I am fully cognizant

¶87

of the submission of Shri.K.Mohanakannan that the property was converted much prior to 2008 and that is evident from Ext.P15-report of the Village Officer dated 19/03/2012, wherein it has been stated that the property had been converted prior to coming into force of the Paddy Land Act. However, this certainly is not a conclusive input and the best evidence that the LLMC can rely upon would be the images to be obtained from the KSREC.

¶88

In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and direct the 6^th respondentLLMC to take up the application of the petitioners, based on which Ext.P16 decision had been taken, and reconsider the same after

¶89

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 13

¶90

obtaining the satellite images and report from the KSREC, the charges for which will be paid by the petitioners as and when called upon to do so.

¶91

On obtaining the report from the KSREC with respect to the entire property and not merely 22.5 cents, the LLMC will formulate their recommendations and place the

¶92

application of the petitioners along with the KSREC report before the RDO, who will thereupon proceed to decide whether the property or any part of it are deserving to be removed from the final Data Bank; however, only after hearing the petitioners, the 5^th respondent as well as the Secretary of the Panchayat.

¶93

In order to obtain an expeditious disposal of the directions above, I direct the LLMC to complete the proceedings with respect to the petitioners' application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and the RDO will thereupon consider the applications finally as

¶94

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 14

¶95

directed above within a further period of one month from the date on which he receives the report from the LLMC.

¶96

Needless to say, until such time as the petitioners are able to obtain orders in their favour from the afore Authorities, all further

¶97

construction being carried on, based on Exts.P6 & P14, shall stand interdicted; clarifying that if, for any reason, the RDO finds to the detriment of the petitioners, then the competent Authority under the Paddy Land Act will be authorized to take further action, including under Section 13 of the said Act, with respect to the property in question,

¶98

without any further orders from this Court.

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶101

JUDGE

¶102

MC/18.11.19

¶103

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 15

¶104

APPENDIX

¶105

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶106

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3360/12,
	DATED 29/5/2012 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3361/12, DATED 29/5/2012 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.5136/12, DATED 4/9/2012 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA DATED 11/8/2005.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF HE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PULAMANTHOLE.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/5/2012.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION 12682/2012 DATED 2/8/2012.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED 25/4/2015.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5- 2643/18/EIM DATED 16/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/5/2019.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TO CORRECT THE DATA BANK ON 15.6.2019 WITH RECEIPT AND FORWARDING LETTER
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER, WITH RECEIPT AND FORWARDING LETTER
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
	15.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF 2.5 CENTS

¶107

WP(C).No.13463 OF 2019 16

¶108

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RECEIPT AND FORWARDING LETTER EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 15.7.2019

¶109

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT. 19/3/2012 WITH RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FEE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE WITH RECOMMENDATION EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT WITH INFORMATION GIVEN RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶110

EXHIBIT R5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK IMAINTAINED BY PULAMANTHOLE GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.5.19 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 30.4.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PUBLISHED DATA BANK EXHIBIT R2 B TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT CONSTRUCTION MC

¶111

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

K.T.Jamalu, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Jamalu, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vanaja K. Vs Palakkad Municipality

T.T.Abdul Rasak Vs Wandoor Grama Panchayath

M.a.Anees Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Indian Pentecostal Church Vs the State of Kerala

K.Moudammal Vs Alfas