[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jossy Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6221
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26322 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
JOSSY CHACKO
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. C.CHACKO KAITHAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHETHACKAL P.O., 689
679, CHETHALACKAL VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.J. MATHEW
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, KALATHIL HOUSE, 38/2391 H,
GANDHI NAGAR, KALOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.ROY CHACKO
SRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPUZHA 688 001.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPUZHA 688 001.
4 THE TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK,
MANKOMBU P.O. ALAPUZHA 688 001.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KAVALAM
KAVALAM P.O., KUTTANAD, ALAPUZHA 688 506.
2026:KER:6221
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
2
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PULINKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PULINKUNNU,
ALAPUZHA 688 504.
BY SRI.Y. JAFARKHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.12.2026, THE COURT ON 27.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6221
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
3
C.R.
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
----------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is preferred by the owner of an extent of
105.81 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6,
and 160/1, along with another property having an extent of 50 Ares
with a building in RS No. 157/2 in Block No. 19 of Kunnumma Village
in Kuttanadu Taluk. Altogether, the contiguous holdings amount to
155.81 Ares (385 Cents).
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is primarily against
certain conditions prescribed in Ext. P5 order passed by the 3rd
respondent. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is entitled
to utilise 105.81 Ares (comprised in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and
160/1 in Block No. 19) for the cultivation of plantain, vegetables, and
tubers. This entitlement is claimed on the strength of the direction
given by the 3rd respondent, asserting that it constitutes a valid
2026:KER:6221
permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,
1967 (for short 'KLU Order').
3. Originally, the petitioner obtained permission under Clause
6(2) for converting a limited extent of land in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5,
6, and 160/1 (in Block No. 19). This conversion was specifically for
a strip of land 6 meters in width and 125 meters in length, intended
to provide access to the property having an extent of 50 Ares in RS
No. 157/2 of Kunnumma Village. This permission was granted as per
the order of the Sub Collector, Alappuzha, dated 17.12.2013.
However, it was later realised that, on the strength of the order dated
17.12.2013, the petitioner had reclaimed a much larger extent of
property. Consequently, the District Collector issued directions to
inspect the property and take necessary steps against the
unauthorised reclamation.
4. Accordingly, an inspection was conducted on 07.01.2015. It
was realised that, on the strength of the order dated 17.12.2013,
the petitioner had unauthorisedly reclaimed a large extent of prop-
erty. A further inspection was conducted on the same day,
07.01.2015, involving the Agricultural Officer, Tahsildar (Kuttanad),
2026:KER:6221
and Village Officer (Kunnumma). During this inspection, the follow-
ing was observed:
• There are 55 yielding coconut trees and 60 coconut saplings in
the property.
• The reclaimed property is suitable for the cultivation of plan-
tains, vegetables, and tubers.
• Water channels suitable for irrigation are present around the
property.
• Cultivating paddy lands is also visible around the property.
5. Accordingly, certain directions were issued to the petitioner, the
Tahsildar (Kuttanad), the SHO (Pulinkunnu), and the Secretary
(Kavalam Grama Panchayat):
1. The landowner shall take steps to cultivate the land with the
abovementioned crops (plantain, vegetables, and tubers)
within 45 days, failing which, the Tahsildar (Kuttanad) is
authorized to take action for the cultivation of the said land by
giving the land under auction.
2. In case any activities are noted on the property that change its
nature, the Tahsildar (Kuttanad) and the SHO (Pulinkunnu) are
2026:KER:6221
authorized to initiate proceedings for the attachment of those
articles used for such activities.
3. No activities or construction other than agriculture shall be
done on this property as per the Kerala Land Utilisation (KLU)
Order. The Tahsildar must ensure that no construction works
are executed on the property.
It was further directed that, as the land is agricultural, the Secretary
(Kavalam Grama Panchayat) shall not grant any permission for
construction in the property comprised in Survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5,
and 160/1, 2 of Kunnumma Village.
6. However, treating the order issued under Clause 7 as a
declaration that the land was not paddy land and not suitable for
paddy cultivation, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 34153 of 2014
for changing the tenure of the land. This writ petition was disposed
of by judgment dated 22.12.2015, which directed the petitioner to
approach the District Collector with all necessary details for changing
the nature of land in the revenue records. Accordingly, the petitioner
approached the District Collector by submitting an application on
12.02.2016. This application was disposed of by proceedings dated
13.07.2016, with the finding that no change was required in the
2026:KER:6221
revenue records. The Collector instead directed the implementation
of the Sub Collector's order.
7. Being aggrieved by the previous order, the petitioner again
preferred WP(C) No. 33373 of 2016 against Ext. P5 and P7 orders,
dated 07.01.2015 and 13.07.2016, respectively. After elaborate
consideration, the Court delivered a judgment dated 17.07.2018.
Although the Court did not interfere with the above orders, it
provided the petitioner an opportunity to approach the respective
statutory authorities seeking:
• Permission to utilise the land for a purpose different from paddy
cultivation or agricultural activities.
• Recording of the present nature of the property in the revenue
records; and
• Reassessment of the tax in accordance with law.
This was based on a legal presumption that the property was not
included in the Data Bank under the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (For short 'Act,
2008').
2026:KER:6221
8. Being aggrieved by that, a Writ Appeal was preferred before
this Court; however, it was later sought to be withdrawn.
Accordingly, this Court granted the petitioner permission to pursue
his remedy against the District Collector, Alappuzha's order dated
07.01.2018. The petitioner was allowed to challenge the order to the
extent it was adverse to him, while simultaneously relying upon it to
the extent it was in his favour.
9. Accordingly, relying on the favourable finding that the land
is not cultivable, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar (Kuttanad)
as per Ext. P12 application under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Tax
Act. The application seeks a direction for the Tahsildar to consider
the matter and effect appropriate entries in the Basic Tax Register
(BTR).
10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader raised the
contention that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition flouting
all principles of res judicata. The argument is based on the fact that
the petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions challenging the
order dated 07.01.2015 issued by the Sub Collector, Alappuzha,
under Clause 7 of the KLU Order. This current petition is viewed as
2026:KER:6221
an attempt by the petitioner to interpret the previous observation
(that the property is not cultivable paddy land) and the direction (to
cultivate other crops like plantains, vegetables, and tubers) to secure
a declaration that the land is garden land, thereby seeking to change
the tenure of the land in the revenue records, which, it is contended,
cannot be permitted at all.
11. The Ext. P5 order dated 07.01.2015 was issued under
Clause 7 of the KLU Order to prevent the unauthorised conversion of
land. This was necessitated because, as per Ext. P3 dated
17.12.2013, the petitioner had been granted permission under
Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order for converting a specific strip of land
(6 meters in width and 125 meters in length) in RS Nos. 157/3, 4,
5, 6, and 160/1 (in Block No. 19), solely for use as a road to his
residential property located in RS No. 157/2. The correct remedy
available for the petitioner, as permitted by this Court under the
Ext.P8 judgment, is to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer
(RDO) under Section 27A of the amended provisions of the Paddy
and Wetland Act. Unless and until such an application is moved and
2026:KER:6221
allowed, the Ext. P12 application under Section 6A of the Land Tax
Act cannot be considered.
12. In response to the said contention, the counsel for the
petitioner argues that Ext.P5 order dated 07.01.2015 is conclusive,
having been issued after a joint inspection by the Tahsildar,
Agricultural Officer, Deputy Director of the Agricultural Department,
Agricultural Assistant Director, and the Village Officer. The order
categorically states that although the property is recorded as Nilam
(paddy land) in the records, it is currently suitable for the cultivation
of plantains, vegetables, and tubers. The petitioner contends that
this finding itself demonstrates that the nature of the property is a
garden land, as these are the crops typically cultivated in garden
lands. Therefore, the nature of garden land must be recorded in the
revenue records after re-assessing the tax, and Ext. P12 application
was preferred for this purpose.
13. The counsel further contends that, as per Rule 12(17) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, no fee is
required for change of tenure when permission under Clause 6(2)
had been granted earlier. In the light of Exts.P3 and P5, it appears
2026:KER:6221
that under the provisions of the KLU Order, specifically Clause 6(2),
the Sub Collector (the authorized authority) has already declared
that the land in question is not paddy land. Hence, the 4th
respondent (Tahsildar) is bound to allow Ext. P12 application, which
was preferred under Section 6 of the Land Tax Act.
14. I have heard Sri.Vincent K.C., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Jaffer Khan, learned Senior Government Pleader for
the respondents.
15. The maintainability of this writ petition must be considered
because it raises a challenge against Ext. P5 order, which the
petitioner has already challenged in two other writ petitions. A direct
challenge was specifically raised in W.P.(C) No. 33373/2016, along
with challenges to subsequent orders, Exts. P10 and P15, passed
under Clause 7. The petitioner contends that he is only challenging
certain conditions of Ext. P5, arguing that the initial part of the order
favours him. This contention does not appear acceptable to me.
Although this Court did not interfere with Exts.P5 and P7 (which
correspond to Exts. P10 and P15 in the other writ petition), the
2026:KER:6221
petitioner was previously directed to approach the appropriate
authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.
16. In an attempt to circumvent the earlier decision, the
petitioner now contends that the observations made by the Sub
Collector in Ext. P5 and Ext. P7 are sufficient ground to treat the
order as having been passed under Clause 6(2) for the entire extent
of property in R.S. Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 in Block No. 19.
The petitioner then argues that the next step should be taken under
Rule 17 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.
This contention is also inapplicable here, as Ext. P5 order cannot be
treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2). It appears that, as a
measure to protect the objective of the KLU Order, certain powers
are vested with the Collector to direct the cultivation of land with the
food crops that were previously being cultivated. The initial
observation of the Sub Collector in Ext. P5 was that the nature of the
land previously contained water channels and water bodies.
However, on the pretext of Ext. P3 order (which allowed the
conversion of a small extent of land for constructing a road to his
residential property), the petitioner unauthorizedly converted a large
2026:KER:6221
extent of land. Instead of directing the restoration of the land, the
Sub Collector directed the utilization of the said land for other
cultivation. The petitioner misinterpreted this as permission under
the KLU Order, which he believes entitles him to convert the land in
the revenue records.
17. In such circumstances, the contentions raised by the
petitioner on the strength of reported decisions that in Sivadasan
v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2017 (3) KLT 822], once
permission is granted under Clause 6(2), the said property can be
used for any other purpose. The Sub Collector cannot direct its use
only for certain purposes. Similarly, on the strength of Shahul
Hameed v. Principal Secretary Local Self Government [2018
(1) KLT 1008], the petitioner asserts that permission is granted to
change the agricultural nature to some other purpose, whether it is
residential or commercial; the land loses its agricultural nature.
Consequently, the owner who utilizes the property for a non-
agricultural purpose cannot be restricted. On the strength of the
decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3)
KLT 182] it is contended that if a land is described as Nilam (paddy
2026:KER:6221
field) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) but was converted long ago,
and there is no evidence of food crops being cultivated for three
consecutive years, restricting its utilization for non-agricultural
purposes would lead to a stalemate regarding the land's use. Even
according to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, a
converted land would not be covered under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Consequently, the property
must be found to be governed solely by the provisions of the KLU
Order.
18. It is further contended, relying on the Full Bench decision
in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Jacob Boban
[2024 (5) KLT 588 (F.B.)], that Rule 12(17) is, in fact, intended to
obviate (render unnecessary) the procedure contemplated under
Section 27A of the Paddy Act when permission for other purposes
has already been granted by the Collector under the Kerala Land
Utilization Order (KLU Order). Consequently, the petitioner argues
that no fee can be levied in such a scenario. Conversely, the learned
Government Pleader contends, based on the judgment dated
23.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 27367 of 2023, that the proper remedy
2026:KER:6221
available to the petitioner is not direct recourse under Section 6 of
the Land Tax Act, but rather to approach the statutory authorities
under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.
19. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the decisions pointed out by the petitioner cannot be
accepted due to the specific factual matrix: the petitioner did not
obtain an order under Clause 6(2) to convert the entire land under
R.S. Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 in Block No. 19, as per the Sub
Collector's proceedings (Ext. P3) dated 17.12.2013. The benefits
available under Rule 12(17) and Section 6A of the Land Tax Act can
apply only to that specific extent of land (having a width of 6 meters
and 125 meters length in the specified survey numbers) alone.
20. If the petitioner intends to change the tenure of the
remaining land, the only remedy available is to approach the
statutory authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, which
enables the petitioner to change the nature of an unnotified land.
The petitioner may prefer an application under Section 27A, and the
respective authorities shall consider the same within a period of six
months from the date of preferring such an application. It is further
2026:KER:6221
declared that Ext. P5 order cannot be treated as an order passed
under Clause 6(2), based on the aforementioned observations. An
order issued under Clause 7, even if it directs the cultivation of
specific crops or gives a general direction to cultivate other crops,
cannot be construed as a permission under Clause 6(2).
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
2026:KER:6221
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26322 OF 2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.10.2016
RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 26964
DATED 12.11.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. H. 5810/13/K.DS DATED
17/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU APPLICATION DATED
10.2.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB-COLLECTOR
DATED 7.1.2015 WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 34153
OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIST
COLLECTOR, ON 13.7.2016 WITH TRANSLATION .
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.201 N
WPC NO. 33373 OF 22016.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2019 IN W.A.
NO. 2142 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.2.2019 IN
W.A. NO. 2142 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IN W.A. NO.
2142 OF 2018, WITHOUT EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE
COVERING LETTER AND RECEIPT DATED 10.6.2019.
