Kerala High Court
Udayan Vasudevan vs The District Collector on 4 February, 2025
2025:KER:8746
WP(C)No.1463 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH
TUESDAY, THE 4 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 15TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1463 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
UDAYAN VASUDEVAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVAN AGED 58 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE,
PANAVELY .P.O. VETTIKKAVALA, KOLLAM , KERALA,
PIN - 691532
BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD
KUDAPPPANAKKUNNU , TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE NEDUMANGADU, NEDUMANGADU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695615
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN , VEMBAYAM , TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN -
695615
OTHER PRESENT:
Smt.Deepa.V, G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8746
WP(C)No.1463 of 2025
2
"C R"
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of property
having an extent of 26.65 Ares of land comprised in
Re.Sy.No.342/12 and 342/3 in Block No.032 of Vembayam
Village in Nedumangad Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District.
The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the said
property stood reclaimed before the enactment of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 Act
(hereinafter referred to as the Paddy Land Act), the same is
described as "paddy land" in the revenue records. In such
circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application in Form
7, as evidenced by Ext.P3, before the 2 nd respondent. As per
Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent rejected the said application.
Aggrieved the same, the petitioner submitted Ext P5 appeal
under Sec.27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008.
2. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 appeal is not
being considered because, the appeal was filed beyond the
period contemplated in Sec.27B. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that, there were valid reasons that
2025:KER:8746
prevented the petitioner from invoking the remedy of appeal
as contemplated under Sec.27B within the period prescribed.
It is also pointed out that, as per statutory provisions, there is
no absolute prohibition against entertaining appeals after the
period stipulated.
3. After hearing Sri.Jomy K. Jose, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt Deepa V, the learned Government
Pleader, I find merits in the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. An appeal is contemplated under
Section 27B of the Paddy Land Act and sub-section (1) of
Sec. 27B reads as follows:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (2)
of Section 27A may prefer an appeal to the
District Collector within thirty days from the date
of receipt of the order."
4. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that, nowhere in
Sec.27B, there is an absolute prohibition for the District
Collector to entertain the application beyond the period
stipulated therein. The relevant words used in the said
provision are, "Any person aggrieved ............. may prefer an
appeal............. within thirty days......." . It is an enabling
provision to file an appeal before the authority concerned
2025:KER:8746
within a specified period. The said provision does not contain
any negative words prohibiting the authority concerned from
entertaining the appeal after the period stipulated. When the
statute does not provide for express prohibition, it is to be
understood as permissible. This principle has been enunciated
by the Court in Narsingh Das V. Mangal Dubey, ILR
(1883) 5 All 163, Para 6
"Courts are not to act upon the principle that
every procedure is to be taken as prohibited
unless it is expressly provided for by the
Code, but on the converse principle that every
procedure is to be understood as permissible
till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As
a matter of general principle prohibition
cannot be presumed."
5. The above view was followed by a Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim Sen,
AIR 1966 All 84, and has been subsequently affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash
Chandra Mishra (2011) 2 SCC 705, where it was held that
the provision has to be interpreted to mean that every
procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless
expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is
2025:KER:8746
prohibited unless expressly permitted.
6. Thus, in the light of the above principles, the only
conclusion possible is that, a reasonable opportunity has to be
granted to the aggrieved parties to avail the next layer of the
dispute redressal mechanism, in cases where, they could not
invoke the remedies, due to reasons beyond their control or
other valid reasons.
7. Of course, it is true that there is also no enabling
provision in the Paddy Land Act for the appellate authority to
accept the appeal after the period specified in subsection (2)
of Section 27B. However, I am of the view that, in such
circumstances, in the absence of an absolute prohibition
against entertaining the application by the District Collector
beyond the period stipulated, necessary directions can be
issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to enable the parties to avail the statutory remedy of
appeal, who could not invoke the said remedy due to reasons
beyond their control or due to any other valid reasons. Such
directions are essential because, as far as the stipulations in
the provisions of the Paddy Land Act are concerned, those
restrict the rights of the owner of the property by confining
the use of the property to certain limited purposes. Since the
2025:KER:8746
right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India, it must be ensured that no person is
deprived of the said right save by the authority of law, as held
by the Apex Court in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142, Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v.
State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356,
State of Mysore v. K. Chandrasekhara Adiga, AIR 1976
SC 853, Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705.
8. In Prabin Ram Phukan v. State of Assam, AIR
2015 SC 1252 , the following observations were made in
para 27;
" It is a settled principle of law that no person
can be deprived of his property or any interest in
the property save by authority of law. Article 300- A
of the Constitution recognizes this constitutional
right of a person, which was till 1978 recognized as
the fundamental right of a citizen. Indeed whether
fundamental or constitutional, the fact remains that
it has always been recognized as a right
guaranteed under the Constitution in favour of a
citizen/person and hence no person cannot be
deprived of this valuable right which the
Constitution has given to him save by authority of
law."
2025:KER:8746
9. Even if the right to property ceased to be a
fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human
right in a welfare State, and hence the same cannot be taken
away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the
Constitution protects such rights. The provisions of the Act
seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions
of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly
construed, as observed in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC,
(2013) 1 SCC 353, K. T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, P. N. Padmamma and
others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and others, (2008) 15
SCC 517, Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State Of
Maharashtra (2020) 9 SCC 356. Hence, it is to be ensured
that such curtailments in the form of restrictive use of one's
own property are made only to those properties which strictly
come within the classes of properties ("paddy land" or
"wetland" in the case of Paddy Land Act), to which such
restrictions are intended to be imposed by the relevant
statute.
10. Thus, every endeavour has to be taken to see that
only those properties are dealt with under the provisions of
2025:KER:8746
the Act, which, on account of their inherent features and
characteristics, deserve/liable to be included within the ambit
of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, all possible errors in making
such a determination are to be ruled out by enabling the
aggrieved party to avail of the multilayered dispute redressal
mechanism contemplated under the Act. The denial of access
to such mechanism on technical grounds, without providing a
reasonable opportunity to get such grievances redressed on
merits, should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.
Hence, I am of the view that necessary directions are to be
issued to the 1st respondent to provide the petitioner with an
opportunity to highlight the reasons which prevented the
petitioner from exercising his statutory rights, and those have
to be considered by the said respondent.
In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of,
directing the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining the
reasons for the delay in submitting the appeal before the 1 st
respondent. In case such an affidavit is submitted within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, the same shall be considered after hearing the
petitioner and upon the 1st respondent finding the reasons
satisfactory; the appeal shall be entertained. Necessary orders
2025:KER:8746
in this regard shall be passed on the question of delay within
one month from the date of receipt of the affidavit as referred
to above. If the 1st respondent is convinced of the reasons for
the delay, the appeal shall be taken up, and orders shall be
passed within three months from the date of admission of the
appeal by complying with the principles of natural justice.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
SM
2025:KER:8746
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1463/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICE, VEMBAYAM, DATED 09-04-2024,
VIDE NO. KL010326028220/2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, DATED
26-02-2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 7,
DATED 07-03-2022, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 31-01-2023, IN APPLICATION
NO. 11/2022/298930,
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
27B OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY AND
WETLAND ACT, 2008, DATED 1-12-2024
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
