Kerala High Court
C.V.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2025
2025:KER:46830
W.P.(C). No.40571 of 2022 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40571 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
C.V.VARGHESE,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY, CHEEPUNGAL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541.
BY ADVS. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN
SHRI.JOBY D JOSEPH
SMT.MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682
030.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
4 TAHSILDAR,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 683 542.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE VIA KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683 545.
2025:KER:46830
W.P.(C). No.40571 of 2022 :2:
6 PAULY THOMAS
OVUNGUMALI HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR VIA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541.
7 ADDL.R7 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, RAYAMANGALAM, KEEZHILLAM, (VIA)
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541.
[ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/07/2024
IN I.A-1/2024 IN WP(C) 40571/2022]
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT.AMRUTHA P S
SMT.AMRUTHA K P
SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
SMT.SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
SHRI.JERIN JOSEPH
SMT.ARYA B. VENUGOPAL
SHRI.ELDHO BABY
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46830
W.P.(C). No.40571 of 2022 :3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.40571 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6, P7 and
P12 orders issued by the respondents.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a permanent resident of
Rayamangalam Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk and he is in
ownership and possession of 10 Ares of property in Sy.No.211/1/2
of Rayamangalam Village. The petitioner is residing with his family
members. Adjacent to the petitioner's property, the 6 th respondent
is having a larger extent of paddy field which is abutting the
petitioner's property. When the 6 th respondent tried to carry out
filling up of the paddy field by using soil, the petitioner was
constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C)No.2929 of
2012, which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 recording the statement
of the respondents that stop memo had already been issued by the
Village Officer and no permission was given by any of the
authorities to carry out the work of the filling up of the paddy field.
2025:KER:46830
The 6th respondent constructed a plywood factory in the adjacent
property owned by him. At that point of time the property having
an extent of 41.03 Ares of land situated in Sy.No.269/2, 269/4,
269/6/2 was still lying as a paddy field. The grievance raised by the
petitioner is that the 6 th respondent attempted to convert the paddy
field to dry land without any permission. While so the 6 th
respondent made an application before the Revenue Divisional
Officer seeking permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation order
to convert the paddy field into dry land. Taking into consideration
Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer
issued Ext.P6 order permitting conversion of the paddy field. The
petitioner submits that Ext.P6 order is issued in violation of the
directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. While so, the
petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act
before the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ext.P7 reply was given
by the Revenue Divisional Officer. While so Ext.P9 order was
issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer intimating that the change
in the nature of land was granted strictly in accordance with law.
Challenging Ext.P6 order, Ext.P10 appeal was preferred by the
2025:KER:46830
petitioner before the District Collector, which was dismissed as per
Ext.P12. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the orders impugned.
3.A detailed statement has been filed by the 3 rd respondent
wherein it is stated that based on a complaint filed by the
petitioner, an inspection was conducted and found that the applied
land is similar to the dry land and the plywood company and
related buildings are located on applied lands and other lands
belonging to the 6th respondent and the said property is recorded
as 'converted land for more than 30 years' in the data bank. It is
further averred that the order of conversion and change of nature
of the land was granted strictly in compliance with the provisions
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') and the Rules. It is
further contended that the petitioner's house is situated 20 Mtrs.
away from the 6th respondent's land and around 80 Mtrs. away
from the factory and that there are no paddy fields near this place.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6 th
respondent also, wherein it is contended that following Ext.P6
2025:KER:46830
order, consequential orders were issued by the Tahsildar(LR)
directing to make necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register and
based on Ext.R6(F) the land has been classified as purayidam. It is
further stated that all the proceedings have been properly initiated
as per the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the Rules and therefore,
no interference is called for.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The essential contention raised by the petitioner against
Ext.P6 order is based on Ext.P2 judgment of this Court in W.P.
(C)No. 2929 of 2012. It is recorded by this Court in Ext.P2
judgment that instructions have been submitted by the Government
Pleader that stop memo has already been issued to the 6 th
respondent and that there is no permission as such by the
concerned authorities permitting the 6 th respondent to carry on the
work of filling up of paddy field. Admittedly as per Ext.P13 data
bank the property has been converted almost 30 years back. It was
taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances that
Ext.P6 order was issued permitting change of nature of land on
payment of the requisite conversion fee. The contention of the
2025:KER:46830
petitioner that Ext.P6 order has been issued under the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order is not correct inasmuch as a perusal of Ext.P6
would reveal that the same has been issued as per the provisions of
the Act, 2008. The counter affidavit filed by the Government would
reveal that the property has been converted 30 years back and the
permissions have been granted strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and Rules. The grievance now raised by the
petitioner is that because of the filling of the land, there is serious
water logging in the area. The petitioner wants the Revenue
Divisional Officer to consider his complaint after getting the
KSREC report. An aspect to be taken note is that even as per the
data bank, the property has been converted 30 years back. Taking
into consideration all these aspects, change of nature of land was
granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is for the inclusion of
a land in the data bank by the LLMC or the removal of land from
the data bank by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that KSREC report
is looked into. On finding that the land is converted almost 30 years
prior to the coming into force of the Act, 2008, after following the
due procedures change of nature of land was allowed by the
2025:KER:46830
Revenue Divisional Officer consequent to which the Tahsildar(LR)
has also directed to make change in the BTR and other revenue
records. The parameters enumerated for consideration of Form-6
application, which has been done as per Ext.P6, is quite different
from consideration of a Form-5 application. In the light of the same
I find no purpose will be served in again verifying the nature of
land on the basis of KSREC report. This Court has also held that
the parameters for considering an application in Form-5 and Form-
6 are totally different in George Varghese v. District Collector
[2023 (7) KHC 93].
7. Since the property has been converted almost 30 years
prior to the coming into force of the Act, 2008 and that a plywood
factory is presently working there and on a finding that Ext.P6
order has been issued after complying with all the procedural
formalities, the appeal was dismissed by the District Collector as
per Ext.P12, I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned
herein.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the
dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the
2025:KER:46830
petitioner in making complaint before the authorities concerned, if
any of the activities undertaken by the 6 th respondent in the subject
property is causing water logging in the area and if such a
complaint is filed, the same shall be duly considered by the
authorities, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2025:KER:46830
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40571/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.04.2022 .
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.2929/2012 DATED 22.02.2012.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OBTAINED FROM
THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KURUPPAMPADY
VILLAGE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED
FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SENT BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
28.01.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
28.05.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
18.08.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OBTAINED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG
WITH THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DATED 8/7/2022.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. (C)
NO.21815/2022 DATED 12/07/2022.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCEKM/9595/2021.L17 ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 20/11/2022.
2025:KER:46830
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK OBTAINED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER DATED 24-3-2012
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER/CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 10/1/2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R6(A) A true copy of the letter issued by the
3rd respondent dated 02.03.2021
Exhibit-R6(B) A true copy of the reply for Ext.R6(A)
letter by 6th respondent dated 04.03.2021
Exhibit-R6(C) A true copy of the site inspection report
dated 06.03.2021
Exhibit-R6(D) A true copy of the letter issued by the
3rd respondent dated 16.03.2021
Exhibit-R5(E) A true copy of the order passed by the
3rd respondent dated 28.05.2021
Exhibit-R6(F) A true copy of the final order passed by
the 4th respondent dated 09.09.2021
