Reji T. Paul vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5035 Ker

Kerala High Court

Reji T. Paul vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 February, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 18146 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
     1     REJI T. PAUL
           AGED 56 YEARS
           F.F.E. EXPRESS TOWER, P.V. SAMY ROAD, CHALAPPURAM,
           KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673002

    2     SAJI T. PAUL
          AGED 53 YEARS
          F.F.E. EXPRESS TOWER, P.V. SAMY ROAD, CHALAPPURAM,
          KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673002

          BY ADVS.
          S.JIJI
          M.M.BABY


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM,
           KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020

    2     THE TALUK OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
          ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERUVANNUR P.O.,
          KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673027

    4     ADDL. R4. JESSY T. PAUL,
          AGED 51 YEARS
          D/O THAZHAMANA PAULOSE, R/AT "FOUNTAIN", NAYARMADHOM
          RAOD, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKKODE -673027 IS IMPLEADED AS
          ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED
          21.07.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023 IN WP(C) 18146/2023.

          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.DEVI SHREE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.18146 of 2023


                              2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they are the owners in

possession of 9.46 Ares (23.4 cents) of land comprised in

Re-Survey No.2/96,97 of the Cheruvannur Village in

Kozhikode District by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed.

Since the property was included in the data bank as

wetland, the petitioners filed an application in Form 5

under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rule

2008') before the 1st respondent for its removal from the

data bank.

2. After removal of the property from the data

bank, the petitioners filed an application in Form 6 for

change of nature of the land and the same was allowed by

the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P3 under Section

27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008').

According to the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent has not

taken any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 for

changes in records. When the petitioners made enquiries

with the 2nd respondent as to why further steps pursuant

to Ext.P3 are not taken, they were informed that, it is on

account of the pendency of a civil suit in respect of their

property that further steps were not taken. The petitioners

state that the pendency of the civil suit cannot stand in the

way of the 2nd respondent carrying out the directions of the

1st respondent in Ext.P3. As directed by this Court, the

petitioners impleaded the additional 4th respondent, who is

the plaintiff in O.S. No.235/2021.

3. The additional 4th respondent has filed a counter

affidavit wherein it has been stated that she has filed the

said suit for fixation of boundary between her property and

the property covered by Ext.P1 for which the existing

survey number is highly relevant and in case, there is

change or alteration of survey number pursuant to the

implementation of the order under Section 27 A of the Act,

2008, that will affect the identity of the plaint schedule

property. Accordingly, it is contended that Ext.P3 order

shall not be implemented. It is further stated that her

mother has also preferred a suit as O.S. No.178/2020 to

cancel Ext.P1 settlement deed and any conversion and

change of nature of the land would prejudicially affect her

claim in the said suit. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal

of the writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Taluk

Officer, the 2nd respondent. It is stated therein that further

steps pursuant to Ext.P3 have not been taken due to the

pendency of the civil suit filed by the 4th respondent. It is

also stated that objection was filed by the additional 4 th

respondent against the subdivision of the property

pursuant to Ext.P3.

5. Section 27A of the Act, 2008 deals with change

of nature of unnotified land. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of

the RDO whereby conversion of the land has been

approved.

6. Section 27C of the Act, 2008 deals with the

changes in records and creation of subdivision and it reads

as follows:-

"27C. Changes in records:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the lime being in force or in any judgement, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivision is permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9,10 or 27A of this Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued.

(2) Where the paddy land or un-notified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records relating to such lands.

(3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and date of the order and the authority granting sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has been accorded, extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall be clearly recorded ensuring that the old entries are legible.

(4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical inspection to ensure that changes in revenue records are in accordance with sub-section (3).

(5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3).

(underlining supplied)

7. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that

the subdivision process and other proceedings pursuant to

Ext.P3 cannot be taken during the pendency of the civil

suit. Section 27C provides that, notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the lime being in force or in

any judgement, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or

any other Authority, where conversion of land is permitted

under Section 27A, subdivision shall be created for the

extent for which such orders for conversion are issued. In

view of the said non - obstante clause in Section 27C of

the Act 2008, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to initiate

subdivision procedure pursuant to Ext.P3 proceedings of

the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A, on the

ground of pendency of civil suit.

8. In view of Ext.P3 order passed by the 1 st

respondent, which is not hitherto challenged, the 2 nd

respondent has to effect the changes in records and create

subdivisions in respect of the property as ordered in

Ext.P3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd

respondent to effect changes in records pursuant to Ext.P3

and take further steps including the creation of subdivision

and take Ext.P3 to a logical conclusion. This shall be done

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the creation of

subdivision pursuant to Ext.P3 shall not impede the rights

of the additional 4th respondent in the pending civil

litigations.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE bng

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18146/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.

3507/2008 DATED 27-09-2008 OF S.R.O. MEENCHANTHA

Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18- 07-2022

Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RDO DATED 30-08-2022 DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CARRY OUT THE CHANGES IN REVENUE RECORDS

Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 17-11-2022

Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4(A) . TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 178 OF 2020 DATED 11.4.2019 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 235 OF 2021 DATED 20.3.2021 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE