Kerala High Court
Abdul Shukkoor P.V vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.17222 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
ABDUL SHUKKOOR P.V.
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, FATHIMA MANZIL, OTHAI,
PERAKAMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.
BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679332.
2 THE THAHASILDAR,
ERANADU TALUK OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676641.
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EDAVANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERAKAMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, PERAKAMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.
BY ADV.
SRI.C.P. PRADEEP, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.17222 of 2020 2
W.P.(C).No.17222 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner obtained 41.68 Ares of land in Survey No.258
of Perakamanna Village as per Ext.P1 sale deed. It is stated that
since the land of the petitioner was shown in the data bank prepared
under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
(the Act) as converted land, he preferred Ext.P12 application before
the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Act
for removal of the land from the data bank. Ext.P12 application was
rejected by the Local Level Monitoring Committee as per Ext.P14
order. Ext.P14 order was challenged by the petitioner before this
court in W.P.(C) No.8137 of 2020, and this court set aside Ext.P14
order and directed reconsideration of the matter by the Local Level
Monitoring Committee. Ext.P15 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8137
of 2020. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, though
Ext.P12 application was reconsidered by the Local Level Monitoring
Committee, the Committee chose to reject the application on the
ground that the land is a paddy land left fallow and cannot,
therefore, be excluded from the data bank. Ext.P16 is the order
issued by the Local Level Monitoring Committee in this regard.
Ext.P16 is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also
the learned Government Pleader.
3. Ext.P5 is the relevant page of the data bank
prepared under the Act. Ext.P5 shows that the total extent of land in
Survey No.258 is 1.8880 hectares and 1.0880 hectares out of the
total extent is lying as paddy land and the remaining land namely
0.8000 hectares is lying as converted land. It is seen that earlier
when Section 3A was introduced to the Act, the petitioner had
preferred an application for permission to make use of the land
owned by him alleging that the land was already reclaimed when
the Act came into force. Ext.P9 is the report submitted on the said
application by the Village Officer. In Ext.P9 report, it is stated that
the land of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act. It appears
that the petitioner could not pursue the application preferred by him
under Section 3A since the said provision was repealed later. The
petitioner, thereafter filed a writ petition before this court as W.P.(C)
No.6639 of 2017 challenging the entry in the data bank concerning
his land. In the said writ petition, this court called for a report from
the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Ext.P11(a) is
the report filed by the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee pursuant to the direction of this court. In Ext.P11(a)
report, after identifying the land, the Convenor of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee has stated that the land of the petitioner is
shown in the data bank as converted 10 years prior to the Act. It was
later a provision was made in the rules framed under the Act
conferring power on the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct
the mistaken entries in the data bank. Ext.P12 application was filed
by the petitioner in the circumstances after withdrawing W.P.(C)
No.6639 of 2017 with liberty to prefer such an application before the
Local Level Monitoring Committee. It is seen that despite Ext.P9 and
P11(a) reports, a statement has been filed in this writ petition by the
Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee taking the stand
that the land of the petitioner is part of the land in Survey No.258
which is lying as a paddy land. This court, in the circumstances,
passed the following interim order on 11.12.2020;
"This writ petition clearly spells out the lethargic attitude
of LLMC in identifying a land which has been included in
the data bank as a paddy land.
2. The petitioner is the owner of a land having an extent
of 41.68 Ares in Re-Survey No.258/12, Block 70 of
Perakamanna Village, Malappuram District. Satellite
images referred in Ext.P11 report of the Kerala State
Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (KSREC), clearly
shows that some portion of the large extent of land is
converted land. This writ petition is the 3rd round of
litigation. In paragraph 5 of Ext.P15 judgment of this
Court, it was directed as follows:-
"5. In that view of the matter, Ext.P-6 order is only
to be quashed and rescinded by this Court as it
has taken into consideration only the irrelevant
aspects. The application of the petitioner for
deletion of subject property from the Land Data
Bank will stand remitted to the 2nd respondent
Local Level Monitoring Committee for
consideration and decision afresh. The 2 nd
respondent LLMC will afford reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
will take note of Ext. P-1 Settlement Register, the
entries in Ext.P-2 Land Data Bank, Ext.P-3 report
of KSREC along with satellite pictures and Ext.P-4
report of the Agricultural Officer dated
31.08.2017, who was the Convener of the Local
Level Monitoring Committee, which clearly shown
that the subject property was converted as
garden land/purayidam, and should pass orders
on the request of the petitioner for deletion of
subject property from the Land Data Bank without
much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of production of a certified copy of
this judgment."
3. In spite of clear directions given by this Court, LLMC
appears to be very lethargic in exercising their power. A
report of the Agricultural Officer has been produced before
this Court along with a memo by the learned Government
Pleader. The report shows that on account of non-
availability of Sub division number of survey number, it
was not possible for the LLMC to identify the extent of
converted land in Re-Survey Number 258. If that was not
available, what could have been done is, a physical
identification of the land and prepare a sketch of the
converted land. That was the simplest mode in such
circumstances. It is for the revenue authorities thereafter
to record such area by assigning the sub-division.
4. In the light of the facts and circumstances, I am of
the view that, LLMC is not able to discharge their duties,
in accordance with law. It is appropriate that, an Advocate
Commissioner is appointed to identify the converted land
and report before this Court. The report shall contain the
physical boundaries of the converted land, prior to the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The report shall be prepared after adverting to the
satellite images and F.M.B sketch in respect of Re-
Sy.No.258. The Village Officer shall identify the Re-
Sy.No.258 in the presence of the petitioner and the
Agricultural Officer.
Accordingly, Adv. Ahamed Fazil E.C., practicing lawyer
of this Court is appointed as an Advocate Commissioner.
The report shall be filed before this Court on 06.01.2021.
The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand only) as batta to the Advocate
Commissioner. The Village Officer is also directed to
identify the property with reference to Ext.P1 title deed
produced by the petitioner."
4. The Advocate Commissioner appointed pursuant to
the said interim order has identified the land of the petitioner
covered by his title deed based on the Satellite images and the FMB
sketch in respect of the land in Survey No.258 in the presence of the
Village officer concerned and also the Convenor of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee, and filed a report in the matter. It is stated by
the Advocate Commissioner in his report that 32.90 Ares out of
41.68 Ares of land obtained by the petitioner is part of 0.8000
hectares (80 Ares) shown in the data bank as converted land. The
Advocate Commissioner has shown the said land in the sketch
appended to his report as Annexure A5. In the light of Ext.P9 report
of the Village officer, P11(a) report of the Convenor of the Local
Level Monitoring Committee and the report of the Advocate
Commissioner appointed in this matter, I have no doubt that 32.9
Ares out of the land purchased by the petitioner is liable to be
excluded from the data bank.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and
Ext.P16 decision of the third respondent is modified to the extent of
excluding 32.9 Ares of land shown in Annexure A5 sketch in the
report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in this matter, out
of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, from Ext.P5 data bank.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
20.09.2012 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT
NO.5390/1/12 OF AREEKODU S.R.O.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 16.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY SETTLEMENT
REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERAKKAMANNA.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.06.2015 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
27.06.2015 UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KERALA
LAND UTILISATION ORDER SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD MEASUREMENT
BOOK.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.02.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM UNDER SECTION 3A OF ACT 28
OF 2008.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT
DATED 18.04.2016 PREPARED BY BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10.03.2017 IN W.P(C)NO.6639/2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE K.S.R.S.E.C REPORT.
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
31.07.2017 OF 3RD RESPONDENT
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P11(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 10.08.2017
OF GOVERNMENT PLEADER FILED IN
W.P(C)NO.6639/2017.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
22.10.2018 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT
LLMC.
EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
29.10.2018 FOR EXHIBIT P12 APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 27A OF ACT 28 OF 2008.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.12.2018 IN WP(c)NO.34247/2018.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF L.L.M.C. HELD ON
11.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.03.2020 IN W.P(C)NO.8137/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.08.2020 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY POST.
EXHIBIT P16(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER OF
EXHIBIT P16.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE PLOT
ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.EDV.05/2020-21 DATED 07.10.2020
ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER
ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.110/2020
DATED 08.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER
