Kerala High Court
Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd vs The Deputy Collector (Rr), Rdo on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:52297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD.
MAVOOR ROAD JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - DR.K.G
ALEXANDER, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.MRINAL CHAND M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), RDO
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
GP SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:52297
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.25952 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the 1st respondent, partially rejecting Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 9 under Section 27A read with Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short), to utilise the property for a commercial purpose.
2. Indisputably, an order passed under Section 27A of the Act is appealable under Section 27B of the Act.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, notwithstanding the alternative statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 27B of the Act, as the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, on account of the non-consideration of the material WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:52297 documents, namely Exts.P7 and P8 and resorting to the appellate remedy would further delay the determination of the matter, and further since only a legal issue is involved viz. whether the conversion of the building portion alone in the residential plot is valid under Section 27A of the Act read with Rule 12(13) of the Rules, this Court may entertain the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Manohari R. v. Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Palakkad (2024 (7) KHC 528) to fortify his contention that, notwithstanding an alternative remedy available under the statute, there is no legal bar in this Court entertaining a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the writ petition. She submits that the disputed factual matters are to be re-appreciated by the Appellate Authority. Ext.P9 application was considered by the authorised officer as per the procedure laid down in the Act and Rules and in its proper perspective, that is why it was partially allowed. There are no extraordinary circumstances WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:52297 made out in the writ petition for the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy. Hence, the petitioner may be relegated to exhaust its statutory remedy under Section 27B of the Act.
6. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly the disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of the property and that it was allegedly naturally filled up before 04.07.1967, which is the crucial factor to be considered in a Form 9 application, and that the petitioner claims the benefit under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27A of the Act, I am of the considered view that the above matters are to be re-appreciated by the fact finding statutory authorities and not by this Court. I don't find any extraordinary circumstance to entertain this writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of this Court and adjudicate the dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too by by-passing the efficacious statutory remedy provided under the enactment.
In light of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:52297 Nonetheless, if the petitioner files an appeal along with a delay petition, the 2nd respondent shall condone the delay, following the principles laid down by this Court in Udayan Vasudevan v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram (2025 (2) KHC 103), and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on its merits, at any rate, within 90 days from the date of filing of the appeal. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of the writ petition with a copy of this judgment before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal untrammelled by any observation made in this judgment.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/15.07.25 WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:52297 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25952/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1083/2005 DATED 01.10.2005 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.280/2007 DATED 16.03.2007 Exhibit P2(a) A COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE YEAR 2024 BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION DATED 05-07-2024 Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLOTS WITH OLD HOUSES Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 18.01.2024 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 06.02.2024 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P2 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25-03-2023 NOTIFYING THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KKB143/18-19 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER STATING THAT THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 AND EXT.P2 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT DATA BANK DATED 02-11-2018 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION DATED 08-07-2024 IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE DOCUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE DATED 09-07-2024 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER BUILDING SITUATED IN THE PROPERTY Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12-07- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 9 UNDER RULE 12(13) Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT DATED 11-09-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON EXT.P9 APPLICATION Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2024 IN W.P.(C).NO.45492/2024 WP(C) NO. 25952 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:52297 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C).NO.902/2025 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1496/2025 DATED 05.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), RDO