Pushpasree vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 12553 Ker

Kerala High Court

Pushpasree vs The District Collector on 19 December, 2025

WP(C) No.34040 of 2022                  1



                                                         2025:KER:98634

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
   FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
                          WP(C) NO. 34040 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

               PUSHPASREE,AGED 56 YEARS
               W/O KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, AGED 56 YEARS,
               PRARTHANA, 101, SANTHITHEERAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
               CHEVAYUR P.O., KOZHIKODE, 673017.


               BY ADV SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA


RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, YYANTHOLE,
               THRISSUR 680003.

      2        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE,
               THRISSUR-680003.

      3        THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
               FOR GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
               GURUVAYUR. 680101.

      4        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
               KRISHI BHAVAN, GURUVAYUR. 680101.

  ADDL.R5      THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
               PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

               IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS
               PER ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN IA NO.3 OF 2024.


OTHER PRESENT:

               GP- RIYAL DEVASSY


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.34040 of 2022                        2



                                                                  2025:KER:98634

                              VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------
                          WP(C) No.34040 of 2022
            ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025

                                     JUDGMENT

The above writ petition has been filed challenging

Ext.R1(a), P25 and P28 orders and also for a consequential

direction to take up the application submitted by the petitioner

under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967

[for short, 'the KLU order'] and to grant permission to the

petitioner to use her property for any other purpose,

notwithstanding Ext.P25.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ

petition are as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in

possession of 60.70 Ares (150 cents) of land comprised in

Survey Nos.143/1 and 143/2 of Guruvayur Village in Chavakkad

Taluk, Thrissur District. The petitioner has purchased the said

property by way of three sale deeds, which are produced as

Exts.P1 to P3. After purchase, mutation was effected and tax

was remitted in the name of the petitioner as evident from

Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that the property is a pucca dry

land and that there are around 150 coconut trees in the

property, all of them are aged either 35 or 40 years old and

2025:KER:98634

these trees were in existence before 04.07.1967, the date of

coming into force of the KLU order.

3. The petitioner would contend that the above factual

position conclusively shows that the properties had been

reclaimed long before 12.08.2008, the date on which the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for short,

'the Act, 2008'] came into force. The petitioner submits that

there is no paddy cultivation either in this property or in the

near vicinity for the last several decades and that her property

is surrounded by several commercial and residential buildings

and comes within the jurisdiction of the Guruvayur Municipality,

adjacent to the famous temple.

4. As early as on 14.06.2006, the petitioner preferred

an application bearing No.B4-25574/2006 under Clause 6(2) of

the KLU order seeking permission to convert the property into

plots and to reclaim the same. The 2 nd respondent obtained a

report from the Principal Agricultural Officer as well as the

Tahsildar, Chavakkad, regarding the status of the land. The

Principal Agricultural Officer, as early as on 11.10.2006,

submitted Ext.P5 report pointing out that there are around 100

coconut trees aged about 30 to 40 years. Though the said report

was forwarded to the office of the 1 st respondent, no orders have

2025:KER:98634

been passed on the said application. When the Data Bank was

prepared, the property was included with an entry that it was

reclaimed 30 years back, as evident from Ext.P6 copy of the

relevant pages of the Data Bank. The petitioner submits that,

subsequently, the property has been removed from the Data

Bank also. Since no orders were passed on the KLU permission

application preferred by the petitioner in 2006, she submitted

yet another application before the 1 st respondent seeking

permission under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order on 01.09.2012,

as evident from Ext.P7. While the matter stood thus, the

petitioner submitted an application before the Additional

Tahsildar seeking correction of the Revenue Records, which was

rejected as per Ext.P10. Challenging the same, the petitioner

has filed WP(C) No.12890 of 2013 and the same was disposed

of, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation

before the District Collector, Thrissur, seeking permission

under the KLU order. Thereupon, Ext.P12 representation was

filed. So as of now, there are three applications pending before

the 1st respondent-District Collector, seeking permission under

the KLU order; application dated 14.06.2006 bearing file No.B4-

25574/2006, in which Ext.P5 report is filed, Ext.P7 application

dated 01.09.2012 and Ext.P12 request dated 07.01.2014. The

2025:KER:98634

petitioner would submit that after the submission of Ext.P12

application, Exts.P13 and P14 reports were called for. The

petitioner would submit that a perusal of Exts.P13 and P14

reports would reveal that there are 64 coconut trees, which are

45 years old and there are several other trees also in the

property. Similar report was submitted as per Ext.P14 by the

Agricultural Officer also. Without taking a decision in the

matter, the District Collector referred the matter to the Land

Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner, by

Ext.P16 order, relegated the matter back to the District

Collector for taking a decision. While so, as advised by the

officials of the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted an

application in Form 9 as provided under Rule 12(13) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008,

which was rejected vide Ext.P22 order by the 2 nd respondent.

Aggrieved by Ext.P22, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which

was also rejected as per Ext.P25. The petitioner would contend

that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, the

KLU permission application submitted by the petitioner as early

as on 07.04.2006 was rejected by Ext.R1(a) order and the

appeal filed against the same was also rejected by the Land

Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P28 and on coming to know

2025:KER:98634

about the same, the writ petition was amended and

incorporated a challenge against the said orders also. It is

aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been

filed.

5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st

respondent, wherein it is contended that the impugned orders

were issued in accordance with law, after verifying the records

and the KLU permission application submitted by the petitioner

on 07.04.2006 has already been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) and

the appeal preferred against the same before the Land Revenue

Commissioner has been rejected by Ext.P28 order. It was

further submitted that by the impugned order, the right of the

petitioner to make necessary application as per the provisions of

the Act, 2008 and the Rules thereto has not been foreclosed

and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the

petitioner.

6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

7. Admittedly, an application as per the KLU order has

already been submitted by the petitioner as early as on

14.06.2006 [the date of application is stated as 07.04.2006 in

Ext.R1(a) order]. Based on the said application, a report was

called for from the Principal Agricultural Officer, Thrissur, and

2025:KER:98634

Ext.P5 report was submitted on 1.10.2006, wherein it is

categorically found that there are around 100 coconut trees,

which are aged 30 to 40 years old. Similar reports were also

submitted by the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer

subsequently as per Exts.P13 and P14, wherein also the

presence of coconut trees aged more than 30 years in the

property are noted. It is seen that the application submitted by

the petitioner in the year 2006 has been rejected as per

Ext.R1(a) order, with a one-line order without assigning any

reasons, simply stating that the application has been rejected.

Ext.P28 is the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner

in the appeal preferred against the same. The appeal has been

rejected taking a stand that the application ought to have been

filed before the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The

application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature

of the land in the Basic Tax Register was rejected by the District

Collector vide Ext.P25 stating that necessary applications could

be submitted in Form 7 invoking the provisions of Section 27 of

the Act, 2008. It is worthwhile to note that the application

preferred by the petitioner as early as in the year 2006 has been

rejected as per Ext.R1(a) by a one-line order, without assigning

any reasons. The case of the petitioner that two other

2025:KER:98634

applications are pending consideration as per the provisions of

the KLU order, ie.Ext.P7 application dated 01.09.2012 and

Ext.P12 request dated 07.01.2014. It is true that the petitioner

had, after submission of the request for permission under the

KLU order, approached the authorities filing various other

applications including application in Form No.9 and also

application before the Tahsildar for change in the nature of the

land in the BTR based on the decision of this Court in Jalaja

Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333),

but those applications were rejected. But the fact remains that a

KLU permission application was filed as early as in 2006.

Subsequent KLU permission applications are dated 01.09.2012

and 07.01.2014, which are much before Section 27(1) was

incorporated in the Statute Book. A perusal of Ext.R1(a) order

would reveal that the KLU permission application has been

rejected without assigning any reason at all. Even the appeal

filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner has been rejected

without any valid reason, as per Ext.P28.

8. A Full Bench of this Court, in Mukthar Ali v. State

of Kerala (2024 (6) KHC 187) while considering the effect of

an application under the KLU order, which is pending before

the coming into force of Section 27(1) in the Statute Book, ie.

2025:KER:98634

before 30.12.2017, has categorically held that the application

filed prior to 30.12.2017 will have to be considered for passing

orders under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order. In the light of the

categoric declaration by the Full Bench of this Court in

Mukthar Ali [supra], I am of the view that the petitioner need

not be relegated to undergo the procedure as contemplated in

Section 27(a) inasmuch as an application was filed by the

petitioner as early as in 2006, which has been rejected as per

Ext.R1(a) and that two other subsequent applications, ie.Exts.P7

and P12, are also pending consideration, which were also filed

much before the coming into force of Section 27(a) in the

Statute Book.

9. In the light of the above, I am of the view that in

spite of the rejection order in other proceedings initiated by the

petitioner, the 1st respondent-District Collector, shall consider

the applications submitted by the petitioner seeking permission

under the KLU order. As already found, the original application

submitted by the petitioner in 2006 has been rejected as per

Ext.R1(a) without assigning any reason and the appeal was also

dismissed as per Ext.P28 without any valid reason.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as

follows:

2025:KER:98634

(i) Ext.R1(a) order as well as Exts.P25 and P28

orders are set aside.

(ii) There will be a consequential direction to the 1 st

respondent to reconsider the application submitted

by the petitioner for permission under the KLU

order dated 07.04.2006, which led to issuance of

Ext.R1(a) order, in the light of Ext.P5 report of the

Principal Agricultural Officer dated 11.10.2006 and

also Exts.P13 to P14 reports and after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. A

decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1 st

respondent within the outer limit of three months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

sp/10/12/2025

2025:KER:98634

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 34040 OF 2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1811 OF 1994 DATED 26-10-94 OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1949 OF 1994 DATED 15-11-94. OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2084 OF 1994 DATED 09-12-94 OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.

Exhibit P4               :TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
                         21-10-2012    ISSUED    BY     THE    VILLAGE
                         OFFICER, GURUVAYUR VILLAGE.
Exhibit P5               TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11-10-2006

OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01- 09-2012 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER, 1967.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER WHICH CONTAINS THE POSTAL RECEIPT ACCOMPANYING EXHIBIT P-7 APPLICATION.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-02- 2013 IN W.P. (C) NO.26577 OF 2012.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29-

                         04-2013    PASSED    BY    THE     ADDITIONAL
                         TAHSILDAR.
Exhibit P11              TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-11-
                         2013 IN W.P. (C) NO.12890 OF 2013.
Exhibit P12              TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                         07-01-2014 SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO
                         THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13              TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-02-2014

SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER THROUGH THE TAHSILDAR.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-02-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B11-3372/2014 DATED 21-03-2014.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. LR(A)4- 17738/2014/LD DATED 07-11-2014.

2025:KER:98634

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29-04-2017 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 02-09-2020.

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09- 11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE APPLICATION DATED 09- 11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06-09-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-12-2021.

Exhibit P23              TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREFERRED BY
                         THE   1ST    RESPONDENT    IN    W.P.    (C)
                         NO.2007/2022 DATED NIL.
Exhibit P24              TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-04-
                         2022 IN W.P. (C) NO.2007 OF 2022.
Exhibit P25              TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DCTSR/394/2022/B3
                         DATED 27-09-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
                         RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P26              True    copy    of    the     communication

No.19145/NCA3/11/Agriculture dated 12-

                         09-2012   issued   by   the    Agricultural
                         Production Commissioner
Exhibit P27              True copy of the building permit dated
                         3-12-2014
Exhibit P28              TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LAND
                         REVENUE COMMISSIONER ON 09.06.2011
Exhibit P29              TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/10/2006
                         ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
                         RESPONDENT
Exhibit P30              TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/5/2011
                         SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE THRISSUR Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C-1726/11 DATED 3/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 3/12/2014

2025:KER:98634

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the order No.B1-25574/2006 dated 06-12-2006 ExhibitR1(b) True copy of the circular No.LRA4- 8808/2012 dated 19.04.2013