T N VISWANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with his nephew, his brother's wife and his brother-in-law jointly purchased 79 cents of land in Survey Nos.133/2 and 135/P in Chiyaram Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District as per three different sale deeds in the year 2005. After the petitioner and others purchased the said parcel of land, they submitted an application dated 16.6.2005 to the District Collector for permission to covert the land and put it to commercial use in view of clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. In that application, it was stated that the conversion was sought for running a retail petroleum outlet. By Ext.P1 order passed on 28.12.2005, the District Collector granted such permission subject to the conditions stipulated therein. THE petitioner and other co-owners thereafter executed a lease deed dated 11.1.2006 leasing out 52 cents out of 79 cents of land to M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd. for the purpose of setting up a retail petroleum outlet. Ext.P1 was challenged in appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner by the neighbouring land owners. In that appeal, the Land Revenue Commissioner passed an interim order of stay. In the meanwhile, the Additional District Magistrate granted No Objection Certificate under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to the lessee under rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for establishing a retail petroleum outlet in the said parcel of land. THE Chief Town Planner thereafter approved the lay out of the petroleum outlet and the Government granted exemption from the Town Planning Scheme. All these matters were subjected to challenge in this Court by a serious of writ petitions. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 19.3.2007, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the appeal filed from Ext.P1 is incompetent and the order of stay passed in that appeal was accordingly quashed. THE learned single Judge also directed that the appeal filed from Ext.P1 would stand dismissed confirming Ext.P1 order. About 9 months thereafter, the second respondent herein filed Ext.P3 petition dated 7.12.2007 before the District Collector, Thrissur alleging that the permission for conversion of the land was illegally obtained. Upon receipt of Ext.P3 complaint, the District Collector issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner and other co-owners restraining them from altering the physical feature of the land or from alienating it. THE District Collector also sent Ext.P5 letter to the Village Officer, Chiyyram Village not to effect mutation under the revenue records and Ext.P6 letter to the Sub Registrar, Thrissur not to register any instrument in relation to the land which is the subject matter of Ext.P1. Upon receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply dated 24.9.2008 before the District Collector. THE District Collector thereafter issued Ext.P9 letter dated 22.6.2010 informing the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 which came into force on 12.8.2008, the land cannot be converted otherwise than in the manner prescribed therein. THE District Collector accordingly held that the orders passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 can have no efficacy after 12.8.2008, when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force and that the petitioner should therefore submit an application to the Convenor of the Local Monitoring Committee for conversion of the land. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P9 runs counter to the findings and observations of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment which has attained finality and that on that short ground, it is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the second respondent has no locus standi to file Ext.P3 petition questioning the grant of permission under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and that as the land has already been converted before 12.8.2008, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 has no application.

(3.) THE learned single Judge noticed that the land in question is barren without any cultivation and cannot be used for cultivation and that there are residential houses in the immediate vicinity of the said portion of land. THE learned single Judge also held that the disputed parcel of land and the neighbouring lands are not being cultivated and the neighbouring lands are either left barren or converted to residential plots or coconut gardens etc. It was accordingly held that the appeal filed by the neighbouring land owners is liable to be rejected. Ext.P2 judgment has admittedly become final. Long thereafter, the second respondent came forward with Ext.P3 petition wherein the complaint raised by the second respondent was that though permission to convert 79 cents of land was obtained for the purpose of establishing a petroleum retail outlet, only 52 cents was leased out to M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. and that the balance 27 cents has been ear-marked for being used for other purposes. THE second respondent has in unnumbered paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 complaint stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioner has reclaimed the entire 79 cents of land. A reading of Ext.P3 will indicate that the objection raised by the second respondent is with regard to the petitioner putting to use for purposes other than for running a petroleum outlet, 29 cents of land out of the 79 cents covered by Ext.P1 order. It appears M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd. had besides proposing to start a petroleum outlet also proposed to start a LPG dispensing station in the disputed portion of land. However, their attempts in that regard did not succeed in view of the fact that Additional District Magistrate rejected the application for No Objection Certificate to set up a LPG dispensing station by Ext.R2(a) order dated 16.7.2008. A mere look at the said order would indicate that the General Secretary of the second respondent organisation was one among the persons who had objected to the request made by M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd. to establish a LPG dispensing station in the disputed parcel of land. It is the said organisation which states in Ext.P3 complaint that as the petitioner is not putting the entire land for using as a petroleum retail outlet which admittedly is confined only to 52 cents of land, the petitioner and other land owners should not be permitted to use the remaining 27 cents of land for any other use. In my opinion, the second respondent organisation which objected to the land owners and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. from establishing a LPG dispensing station in the parcel of land covered by Ext.P1 cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner and other land owners should not put the land to any other use. In view of the findings and the observations of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment which have attained finality, the second respondent organisation cannot successfully object to Ext.P1. In view of the specific findings in paragraph 31 of Ext.P2 judgment, the District Collector cannot re- examine the question once again under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In view of the fact that that even according to the second respondent, the land has been converted prior to 12.8.2008 and the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 can have no application. It is evident from the conduct of the second respondent that the attempt of the second respondent is only to prevent the petitioner from putting his land to profitable use. Having regard to the past conduct of the second respondent, especially in objecting to the request made by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. to establish an LPG dispensing station in the disputed premises, I am of the opinion that the District Collector ought not have initiated any action on Ext.P3 complaint. Necessarily therefore, it has to be held that Ext.P9 is liable to be set aside. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P9 and declare that the rights of the petitioner will stand governed by the findings and observations of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. THE parties shall bear their respective costs. Such being the situation, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent that as the petitioner has abused the permission given to him by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, he becomes trespasser ab initio and therefore it must be treated that Ext.P2 permission never existed does not deserve to be countenanced. THE second respondent who was earnestly taking steps to prevent the petitioner from putting the land to profitable use pursuant to Ext.P1 order cannot in my opinion be heard to raise such a plea.