Disposed

E.K Kunhammed Kutty, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2024WP(C)/38785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges conditions imposed under a prior order applicable to Section 27A applications, seeking correction for land converted prior to 1967. The High Court of Kerala held that such conditions are inapplicable to Rule 12(13) claims involving pre-1967 conversions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3 application within six weeks, ensuring the resultant order is not subject to the stipulations in Ext.P2.

E.K Kunhammed Kutty, Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 38785 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

E.K KUNHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 72 YEARS S/O ELARAMKOTTU ABDULLA, 3/438 ROSE VILLA, POTTANGADI RAGHAVAN ROAD, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011

¶7

BY ADVS. V.HARISH RAJAN VISHNURAJ ASWATHY CHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶11

3 TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS ), CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶12

SRI. E.G GORDEN-SR. GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) No.38785 of 2023

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The above writ petition is preferred by a person, who holding 8.628 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.5-19-907/1 in Kasaba Village of Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhilode District. The writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the imposition of certain conditions in Ext.P2 order, whereby it is declared that the land in question is converted prior to 04.07.1967 and seeking for a direction to declare that the 2^nd respondent has no power to impose condition Nos. 1 to 3 in Ext.P2 order restricting the use of the petitioner's land which is converted prior to 04.07.1967.

¶18

It is stated that the property of the petitioner situated northwards of Mavoor road in Kozhikode city. The petitioner obtained the said property through various registered land deeds, namely Deed Nos.1362/1945, 498/1946, 183/1947 and Deed No.309/1952. The said property was having buildings even prior to 1944. The total extent of property is 8.628 Ares of land. It is further stated that while preparing the databank of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation, the property of the petitioner, which does not have any features of paddy land, also included.

¶19

Under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application before the 2^nd respondent for correction in revenue records

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.38785 of 2023

¶22

which shows the nature of property as 'Nilam'. The said application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.25683 of 2022, which was allowed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 20.03.2023 and directed the 2^nd respondent to make necessary corrections in the revenue records.

¶23

Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has passed Ext.P2 order, whereby imposed certain conditions, which is applicable only with respect to the applications submitted under section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In the instant case, it is contended that the prayer sought for is only for a declaration under Rule 12(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, since the property is converted prior to 04.07.1967. In such cases, the conditions to be imposed in the application under Section 27A is not applicable. In that respect, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent on 02.10.2023. It is stated that till date, the said representation is not considered. Since conditions imposed in Ext.P2 order will adversely affect the interest of the petitioner, he seeks for a direction to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, in the light of Ext.P1 judgment.

¶24

¶25

WP(C) No.38785 of 2023

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the conditions imposed in Ext.P2 order is not suitable to a declaration under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. In fact, such conditions are imposed only in the applications under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

¶28

In the instant case, it has to consider the nature of property as it was available on 4^th July 1967, the petitioner asserts that there was a well constructed building exists in the property even prior to the assigned date. Hence, the description in the revenue records as 'Nilam' is only an error occurred. In that circumstances, he approached the revenue authorities as on earlier occasion and that was rejected. Such rejection was challenged before this Court and obtained an order in his favour. Even thereafter, such unwarranted conditions are imposed which is not prescribed under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules.

¶29

On examination of Rule 12(13) of the rules, it is discernible

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No.38785 of 2023

¶32

that the provisions of Rule 12(13) intends only to correct the mistake occurred from the part of the revenue authorities. It only prescribes the documents to be relied on as evidence while considering Form No.'9', which is prescribed for submitting application to change the nature of the property in the revenue records, if the property claimed to be converted or retained prior to 4^th July 1967. There is no specific direction is prescribed to impose conditions while exercising correction as stipulated in Ext.P2.

¶33

Under such circumstances, it appears to be an error occurred on the part of the 2^nd respondent. Hence, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the issue by disposing of Ext.P3 application, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

Needless to say, the resultant order shall dehors any stipulation as

in Ext.P2.

sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

das

WP(C) No.38785 of 2023

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38785/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2023 IN WP (C) NO.25683 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOKKD/209/2019-C2 DATED 19.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 02.10.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

E.K Kunhammed Kutty, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.K Kunhammed Kutty, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Febin Babu Mootheril, Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Rajan P.R, Vs Parakkadav Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Unnikrishnan K.V Vs State of Kerala

Rahmath Beevi Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Yeshoda C.H Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies