LINE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a private limited company stated to be in ownership of 37.32 Ares of land in Sy. No. 24/1A-4 and 24/1A-3 of Edappally North Village of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The land belonging to the petitioner was included in the Draft Land Data Bank prepared for the region wherein the land was described as 'converted land'. The description of the land in the Basic Tax Register was also shown as 'nilam'. When the petitioner submitted an application (Ext. P2) under Clause 6(2) of the (for short, 'KLU Order') before the District Collector, the same was not considered by the District Collector, presumably because the petitioner had not obtained any order directing removal of his land from the Land Data Bank. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P.(C) No. 37329/2017, which was disposed by a common judgment dated 21.11.2017, directing the District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2 application on merits, and a further direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short, 'the LLMC') to examine whether the property in question was paddy land or wet land liable for inclusion in the Data Bank, and thereafter to forward the report to the District Collector for passing consequential orders.

(2.) It would appear that, pursuant to the direction in Ext. P3 judgment, the LLMC, by Ext. P4 proceedings, found that the land belonging to the petitioner, and which was included in the Land Data Bank, was not in the nature of a paddy land or wet land liable for inclusion in the Data Bank. The LLMC therefore recommended for an exclusion of the land from the Land Data Bank through a report forwarded to the District Collector. Thereupon, the District Collector, by Ext. P5 proceedings, in purported exercise of power under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, granted permission to the petitioner for conversion of the land as 'nikathu purayidam'. In Ext. P5 proceedings, however, the District Collector went on to stipulate that the petitioner had to comply with the amended provisions, in particular Section 27A, of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, 'the 2008 Act') for the purposes of carrying, out the consequential corrections in the Basic Tax Register. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns Ext. P5 order of the District Collector, to the extent it contains a stipulation as regards compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the 2008 Act, mainly on the contention that the said stipulation could not have been insisted upon when the application submitted by the petitioner, under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, was as early as on 22.09.2017 and a consideration thereon had to be in accordance with the law as it stood prior to the amendments to the 2008 Act with effect from 30.12.2017.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and an argument note has also been submitted by the learned Government Pleader at the time of hearing. The stand taken by the respondents is essentially that, since the land belonging to the petitioner was included in the Land Data Bank, albeit erroneously, the' land had to be seen as paddy land on account of the deeming provision contained in the 2008 Act. It is pointed out that, by virtue of Section 5 of the said Act, the inclusion of any land, even erroneously, in the Land Data Bank creates a rebuttable presumption that the land is either a paddy land or wet land, and unless the land was excluded from the Data Bank, the owner could not approach the authorities under the KLU Order for appropriate orders of conversion of the land for other permissible uses. It. is contended that, inasmuch as the right of the petitioner to have the land removed from the Data Bank arose only pursuant to Ext. P4 proceedings of the LLMC on 11.05.2018, notwithstanding that the petitioner had preferred an application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order as early as on 22.09.2017, an effective consideration of the same by the District Collector could have been only after 11.05.2018, the date of Ext. P4 proceedings of the LLMC. When so viewed, the consideration had to be in accordance with the amended provisions of the 2008 Act that came into force in the meanwhile. In support of the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Ors v. Jalaja Dileep and Ors. 2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC) : 2015 (2) KHC 109 as also the judgments of this Court in Thomasly v. Irinjalakuda Municipality and Ors. 2017 (1) KLT 397 : 2017 (1) KHC 450 and Kunhimoideenkutty v. Marakkara Grama Panchayath 2018 (3) KLT 1033.