Kerala High Court
Puttakkadan Mohammed Ali vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2021
WP(C).No.29821 OF 2011(C) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.29821 OF 2011(C)
PETITIONER/S:
PUTTAKKADAN MOHAMMED ALI
S/O YUSAF HAJI, PUTTAKKADAN HOUSE,, VASHANKKADA,
ALIPARAMBA,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA-679 322
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ALIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM- 679 357.
R1 TO R4 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SENIOR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29821 OF 2011(C) -2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.
P1 and P2 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Perinthalmanna dated 18.11.2008 and 12.08.2011 and for other
consequential reliefs.
2. The subject issue relates to conversion of a paddy field with
entry in the village records as 'Nancha', by the writ petitioner.
Apparently, on the basis of the said conversion, the Revenue
Divisional Officer initiated action under Section 3 (2) (b) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, initially by Ext. P1 dated
18.11.2008, directing the petitioner to remove the rubber plants
planted in the property in question, failing which appropriate action
will be initiated against the petitioner as per the provisions of
Essential Commodities Act.
3. Anyhow, later after receipt of the objection raised by the
petitioner, Ext. P2 final order was passed on 12.08.2011 as per the
provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is thus
challenging the legality and correctness of the said orders, this writ
petition is filed.
4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Perinthalmanna, namely the 3rd respondent, justifying his
action as per Exts. P1 and P2. It is also contended in the said counter
affidavit that he is enabled with powers as per the provisions of the
Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, to direct the petitioner to
reconvert the land, after removing other agricultural plants, in order to
carry out the cultivation of paddy.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.
Mohanakannan and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Surin
George Ipe and perused the pleadings and material on record.
6. The sole question to be considered is whether the action
initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the
Essential Commodities Act can be held to be correct or not. Section 3
(2) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads thus:-
"3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc.,
of essential commodities.-
(2)(b) For bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land,
whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon
of food-crops generally or of specified food-crops, and for
otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops
generally, or of specified food-crops."
7. On a reading of the said provision, it is clear that what is
contemplated thereunder is the power for issuance of direction to
cultivate a paddy field, which is kept fallow by the owner of the land,
in order to tide over any adverse situation of Essential Commodity. In
my considered opinion the said provision has nothing to do with an
already converted paddy field and cultivated with other agricultural
crops.
8. A property already converted from a paddy field by carrying
out other cultivations is guided by the provisions of Kerala Land
Utilization Order, 1967, which is constituted as per the provisions of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1965. It is true as per clause 6 of
Order 1967, in order to convert a paddy field for other purposes or for
other agricultural operations, necessarily, the owner of the paddy field
will have to secure permission from the authorities constituted under
the Order, 1967. There is no case for the petitioner that petitioner has
sought any permission to plant the property in question with rubber.
However, as per clause 7 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967, if any
person converts a property, the District Collector is vested with
powers to issue directions to cultivate the property with paddy. There
is no case for the Revenue Divisional Officer that any action was
initiated under clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967. Clauses 6
and 7 of the Land Utilization Order read thus:-
"6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated
with any other food crop.- (1) No holder of any land, which has
been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period
of three years immediately before the commencement of this
Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to
utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for
any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms
of a written permission given by the Collector.
(2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any
food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after
the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of
three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to
utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for
any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms
of a written permission given by the Collector:
Provided that except in the case of lands under cardamom
cultivation, no permission under sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2),
shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is
converted or attempted to be converted or attempted to be
converted or utilised or attempted to be utilized is paddy
cultivation or fish culture:
Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy
should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised
or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only
seasonally
7. Power of Collector to direct cultivation of land with the
food crop which was being cultivated.-(1) If it appears to the
Collector that any person is attempting to contravene the
provisions sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2) of clause 6, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any law, order, custom or
practice for the time being in force, and without prejudice to any
other action that may be taken against such person, the Collector
may, by notice in writing in Form E, call upon such person to
cultivate such land with those food crops which were under
cultivation in the land in the three years referred to in sub-clause
(1) or sub-clause (2) as the case may be, of Clause 6, either
personally or through any other person, within the period
specified in the notice:
Provided that no such notice shall be issued unless such person
has been given an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that no such notice shall be issued to the
holder of any land if the cultivation attempted to be made in that
land is paddy cultivation.
(2) Every notice issued under sub-clause (1) shall be served in
the manner provided in sub-clause (2) of Clause 4.
(3) the person to whom a notice under sub-clause (1) has been
served does not comply with the notice within the time specified
in the notice or within such further time as may be allowed by the
Collector, the Collector may, without prejudice to any other
action that may be taken against him, by order direct and arrange
for the sale by public auction of the right to cultivate the land as
provided for in Clause 5, subject to such conditions as may be
specified in the order.
(4) Every order made under sub-clause (3) shall be in Form F.
(5) Out of the amount realised by sale as provided in sub-
clause (3), the revenue due on the land and other dues to the
Government, if any, shall first be adjusted and the balance made
over to the holder of the land by way of compensation.
(6) Every successful bidder, on confirmation of the sale
mentioned in this clause shall be given a certificate of sale in
Form D, incorporating the conditions of such sale."
9. As I have pointed out earlier, the subject issue was never
guided by the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act because
there is no case for the Revenue Divisional Officer that the property
was kept fallow without being cultivated with paddy. On the other
hand, the case of the Revenue Divisional Officer was that the paddy
field / Nancha was utilized by the owner of the property to carry out
cultivation of other agricultural crops. The provisions of the Land
Utilization Order extracted above would show that there is a clear cut
procedure prescribed to tackle the situations at hand but there is no
case for the respondents that any steps were taken in contemplation of
law consequent to the alleged conversion of the paddy field. On the
other hand the steps taken under section 3 (2) (b) of the Essential
Commodities Act 1965 against conversion of the paddy field is not
maintainable under law since the finding in the order impugned itself
is that, already the property is utilized for cultivation of other crops,
which is not a ground at all to invoke the powers conferred under the
EC Act as above .
10. Taking into account the above provisions of Essential
Commodities Act and the provisions of Order 1967, I am of the
considered opinion that Ext. P1 and P2 orders passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer can never be sustained under law. Petitioner has
also a case that consequent to the introduction of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the provisions of
the Land Utilization Order as well as the Essential Commodities Act
would not be applicable.
11. I am not agreeable with the said contention raised by the
petitioner for the reason that even after the introduction of the Act
2008, the provisions of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 was still in
force till Section 27A was added to the Act 2008 with effect from
13.12.2017.
12. In that view of the matter, the said contention raised by the
petitioner has no force, however, the writ petition is allowed and I
quash Exts. P1 and P2 orders, as specified above. But I make it clear
that the findings and observations made above are solely on the issue
of Exts. P1 and P2 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on
the basis of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965
and it shall not be construed as anything to do with the provisions of
Act 2008 .
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. M.
3681/08 DATED 18.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
LRA/6/57461/08 DATED 12.08.2011.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO SHOW
THE NATURE OF THE CULTIVATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
23.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE SUB
COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA.
