Division Bench dismissed the State's writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order directing the Tahsildar to reconsider a land utilization application. The bench relied on a prior Division Bench judgment confirming the petitioner's freedom to utilize the land as dry land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WA NO. 1678 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in WP(C) 19545/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.5 OM WP(C):
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.H.HANIL KUMAR(SR.) ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
RESPONDENT/S:
BY ADVS.
K.P.SREEKUMAR(R1)
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
2
ADV. RAJITHA RAJAN for ADV.R.AZAD BABU (R2)
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL.GP.M.H.HANIL KUMAR; ADV. RAJITHA RAJAN FOR ADV. R. AZAD BABU FOR R2.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
3
A. J. Desai, C.J. &
V.G. Arun, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
Dated this the 30th day of October 2023
JUDGMENT
A.J. Desai, C.J.
By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, the State of Kerala has challenged the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19545/2017 by which the learned Single Judge accepted the case of the original petitioner and accordingly directed to consider petitioner's application taking into consideration the declaration made by this Court vide judgment dated 23/12/2015 in W.P.(C)No.11580 of 2015.
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
4
He therefore, would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed error in directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the application.
“ All the above aspects were not taken into consideration by the 3rd respondent while rejecting the
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
5
application as per Ext.P3 order. Hence, I am of the view that the respondents cannot now go beyond Ext.P1 judgment wherein a specific declaration has been given by this Court that the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order or the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act are not applicable to the petitioner's land and the petitioner is free to use the property as dry land for all practical purposes. It is not even stated as on date that the petitioner's property has been included in the data bank as paddy land. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner's application as is evident from Ext.P3 is unsustainable and is only liable to be set aside. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application taking into consideration the declaration given in Ext.P1 judgment and also the report of the KSRSEC that even as on 1967 the property was lying as mixed plantation and settlement. A fresh decision in the matter shall be taken by the 3rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner.”
earlier was allowed and that judgment was challenged by filing W.A.No.1818/2023, which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide Judgment dated 16/10/2023. Learned Single Judge, in the judgment in W.P(C)No.11580 of 2015 has
W.A.No.1678 of 2023
6
observed as under;
“In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is free to utilize the land in accordance with the law as it would not come into the ambit of either under the land utilization order or converted paddy land. However, if the petitioner wants to assess the land tax, the petitioner is free to approach the Tahsildar for re-assessment of land tax in terms of Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, based on the declaration of this Court. It is made clear that no restriction under the paddy or KLU would apply to the petitioner's land, the petitioner is free to use it as a dry land for all practical purposes. If any application is filed by the petitioner, the Tahsildar shall consider the application within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this application”.
In view of the above observation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. J. Desai Chief Justice Sd/-
V.G. Arun Judge
dpk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Single Judge's direction to the Tahsildar to reconsider an application for land utilization.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to use the land as dry land free from Kerala Land Utilization Order restrictions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others v. Jalaja Dileep and AnotherReferred¶42
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others v. Jalaja Dileep and Another [2015 (2) KHC 109]
W.P.(C)No.11580 of 2015Referred¶47
W.P.(C)No.11580 of 2015
W.A.No.1818/2023Referred¶46
W.A.No.1818/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Kerala
M/s. Sunshine Corporation
Alappully Municipality
A.J. Desai
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
