Kerala High Court
V.P. Ajith vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
V.P. AJITH,
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O. CHATHUNNI, PANIKASSERRIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM
SOUTH, KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
JAI MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
2
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, PORATHISSERY,
IRINJALAKKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125
5 THE TAHSILDAR, (LAND RECORDS),
MUKUNDAPURAM, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, PORATHISSERY,
IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 44964 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P7 and P9
orders, and direct the 5th respondent to reclassify the
petitioner's property mentioned in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession 11.53
Ares (28.05 Cents) of land comprised in Survey No.291 of
Irinjalakkuda Village, Thrissur District, covered by
document No. 250/2003 of the Irinjalakkuda Sub Registry
Office. Out of the above said property, 5.26 Ares in Survey
No.291/1-3 was erroneously classified as paddy land in
the revenue records, but, was not included in the data
bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wet Land Act , (in short, 'Act') and Rules framed
thereunder . On 06.01.2007, the petitioner submitted an
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
application before the 3rd respondent under Clause 6 of
the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLUO), to utilize
his property for non-agricultural purposes. The said
application was allowed by Ext.P2 order with certain
conditions. Ultimately, by Ext.P4 proceedings, all the
conditions were deleted by the 3rd respondent. In the
meantime, the petitioner got indisposed. On 29.05.2023,
the petitioner mistakenly submitted an application under
Section 27A of the Act, for regularization of the property
before the 4th respondent. By Ext.P7 order, the 4th
respondent rejected the petitioner's application. On
realizing the said mistake, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8
application to modify Ext.P7 order and re-classify his
property in the revenue records as dry land for other
consequential orders. However, by Ext.P9 order, the 5 th
respondent has rejected Ext.P8 application. Exts.P7 and
P9 are erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
3. Exts.P2 to P4 orders, undoubtedly substantiate
that the petitioner was granted an order under Clause 6
of the KLUO as early as on 25.06.2007.
4. It is longer res-intgra in Sealand Builders
Pvt.Ltd. (M/s.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Fortkochi and others [2020 (5) KLT 56] and Tahsildar
v. Renjith George [2025 KHC Online 7012] that, if an
order is passed in favour of a landowner under Clause 6 of
the KLUO prior to 30.12.2017, there is no necessity for
the landowner to pay any conversion fee under Section
27A of the Act. The landowner has to only file an
application for reclassification of the property and
payment of land tax.
5. In the case at hand, the petitioner received
Exts.P2 to P4 well prior to the crucial date, that is
30.12.2017. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P9 orders passed by
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
the respondents 4 and 5 are untenable and against the
settled principles of law in the aforecited decisions.
Hence, I am convinced that the writ petition is only to be
allowed and Exts.P7 and P9 are liable to be quashed.
In the result, the writ petition allowed in the
following manner:-
(i) Exts.P7 and P9 order are quashed.
(ii) The 5th respondent is directed to reconsider
Ext.P8 application in accordance with law and the
principles laid down in Sealand Builders Private Ltd
and Renjith George cases (supra), at any rate, within 60
days from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
SCB.21.05.25. JUDGE
2025:KER:34816
WP(C) NO. 44964 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44964/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATABANK PREPARED UNDER
SECTION 5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008, IN
RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
25.06.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
17.07.2010 OF THE LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
28.02.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
21.11.2024 ISSUED BY DR. SANDEEP
PADMANABHAN, SENIOR CONSULTANT, NEUROLOGY
OF ASTER MEDCITY, KOCHI
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
29.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
23.05.2024 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
28.10.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2024
PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
