Kerala High Court
M/S Mecpro Infratech Pvt Ltd vs Alangad Grama Panchayath on 9 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 28085 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
M/S MECPRO INFRATECH PVT LTD
32/1487 B2, 2ND FLOOR, PALARIVATTAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, RAJAN SKHARIYA,
S/O.P.U,JOHN.
BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
NEERIKODE P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PINCODE-683513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY
ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEERIKODE P.O., ALUVA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-683513.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT COCHIN, PINCODE-682001.
4 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ERNAKULAM, PINCODE-682011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA.B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON 09.06.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
2
MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J
------------
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 22.41 Ares of
the property comprised in Survey Nos.470/1A, 489/10, 490/1A1, 490/1B,
490/1A2, 480/1A, 489/10, 490/2, 490/3, 466/7, 466/8 and 466/9 purchased
as per registered Sale Deed Nos.983/2011, 982/2011, 898/2011,
4409/2011, 3538/2010, 3858/2010 of Alangad Sub Registrar Office having
purchased the same from Mathew P.Jose, Davis Jose, M.C.Thomas and
O.U.Zakir, who had submitted an application under the provisions of the
Kerala Land Utilisation Order dated 26.03.2012 before the 3rd
respondent-Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi, seeking permission for
construction and developmental activities in the abovementioned
properties. By order dated 31.05.2013, the 3rd respondent-RDO passed
Ext.P1 order lifting the prohibitory order issued against conversion and
reclamation of the land in question, stating that all the reports showed that
the applied land had already been converted/reclaimed and hence no
further reclamation is necessary. It was also observed regarding the
construction and developmental activities that it was open to the applicant
to approach the local bodies concerned as per the rules. In Ext.P1, the 3rd
respondent also held that since the period when the conversion was made
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
is in dispute, the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, will find out the
approximate period. Accordingly, the Principal Agricultural Officer,
Ernakulam, after conducting an enquiry passed an order on 3.8.2012,
Ext.P2 stating that the original conversion could have been made at least
ten years back.
2. Based on Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner submitted an application
for a development permit before the first respondent Panchayath by
Ext.P3. However, the same was rejected by Ext P4 order, stating that the
property in question is described as 'nilam' in the revenue records, which
was challenged before this Court in WP(C)No.14919/2013, wherein this
Court, by Ext P5 judgment set aside the order impugned therein with a
direction to the Panchayath to consider the application submitted by the
petitioner afresh after conducting an inspection of the land of the
petitioner to verify whether the same continues to be a paddy land as
described in the revenue records or whether that the conversion was made
prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wet Land Act, 2008 and to pass appropriate orders on the application.
In spite of this judgment, by Ext.P6, the Secretary of the first respondent,
Panchayath, again rejected the request stating the same reason as in
Ext.P4 and passed Ext.P6 order. This is challenged by the petitioner
primarily contending that the petitioner's property was lying as dry land
even before the petitioner's purchase and sale deed also noticed the same.
It is also stated that Exts.P1 and P2 also reinforce the fact that the
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
petitioner's land cannot be treated as either a paddy land or a wetland,
and Ext.P6 order falls in the teeth of Ext.P5 judgment and accordingly
prays for quashing Ext.P6 order.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third
respondent stating that the filling of the land in the instant case was done
unauthorizedly and disregarding the orders of prohibition issued from the
office of the third respondent. It is also stated that the reports got through
the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, Alangad also reported
about the illegal filling of paddy fields and water sources, and the
properties in question were included in the draft data bank prepared as
per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land
Act, 2008.
3. The first respondent Panchayath has also filed a counter affidavit
stating that the lands in question is a paddy field as per the village
records, and it was converted in the year 2009-2010 and that on account of
this act that a stop memo has been issued in respect of the properties. It
is further stated that the property was included in the draft data bank
prepared under the provisions of the Act and thus justified Ext.P6 order. It
is also the contention of the Panchayath that going by Ext.P1 order, the
petitioner was to approach the Government for regularization of the
unauthorized conversion of the land, and since the same has not been done
so far, Ext.P6 order passed refusing permission for construction is in order.
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
4. I have heard Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned Government Pleader.
5. It cannot be disputed that by Ext.P1 order, the third respondent-
RDO found that the land in question had already been converted/reclaimed
and that no further reclamation is necessitated. The only observation in
Ext.P1, which calls for a factual enquiry, was the period of conversion,
which the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, was left to decide. In
such circumstances, the third respondent held in Ext.P1 that the
petitioners are at liberty to approach the Government for regularization of
the unauthorised conversion of the reclaimed land in accordance with the
orders then in force.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that
the consideration by the first respondent ought to have been under Clause
6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short 'the KLU Order')
and on account of his failure to pass orders strictly in accordance with the
same, the Panchayath is taking advantage and declining the permit sought
for construction by Exts.P4 and P6. It is relevant to note that In spite of
Ext.P4 order being quashed by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the
Panchayath has reiterated the same stand again in Ext.P6, which is clearly
an error. Since the petitioner's application for permission under Clause 6
of the KLU Order is prior to the coming into force of the Act, neither
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
Section 27A nor 27C (amended by Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wet Land (Amendment Act) i.e, Act 29 of 2018) which came into force only
on 30.12.2017, has any application in the instant case.
In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P6 order passed by the
Panchayath. The third respondent-RDO is directed to reconsider Ext.P1
and pass orders strictly in accordance with Clause 6 of the KLU Order as
the application was made prior to coming into force of the Amended Act
29 of Act 2018. A decision in this regard will be taken with notice to the
petitioner at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. It is declared that the third respondent-RDO has to
reconsider Ext.P1 without referring to the provisions of the Amended Act
29 of 2018. Based on the decision to be passed by the third respondent-
RDO, the first respondent Panchayath is directed to reconsider the
application for development submitted by the petitioner within two months
from the date of receipt of the orders passed by the third respondent-RDO
as directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,JUDGE
dlK 3.6.2023
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28085/2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.K-242/10/K. DIS DATED
31.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT
COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TA(1)4568/12 DATED
03.08.2012 ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM TO THE PREDECESSORS IN TITLE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
DATED 31.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFOFE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.A2-4554/13 DATED 03.06.2013
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.14919/2013(L).
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.A4-4554/13 DATED 28.10.2013
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF
APPLIED LAND OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN,
ALANGAD DATED 10.10.2013
EXHIBIT R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
10.10.2013
EXHIBIT R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOVAL
LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT R1(b)
DATED 15.06.2010
EXHIBIT R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE VILALGE
WP(C)No.28085 of 2013
OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2013
