AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J.
The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 order and direct the 5th respondent-Secretary to Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat to regularise the building covered by Ext.P7 application, forthwith.
The petitioner is owner in possession of 58.9 Cents of property in Survey No.204/8 of Nedumbassery Village in Aluva Taluk. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 order dated 15.05.1996 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi whereby the land was permitted to be utilised for purpose other than paddy cultivation.
The petitioner constructed a weigh bridge and an office room in the property. As the construction was without obtaining Building Permit from the Panchayat, the petitioner submitted an application for regularisation of the construction. The petitioner was informed that since his land is described as paddy land in Revenue records, the application for regularisation cannot be considered.
Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar seeking to reassess his land under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and to make necessary additional entries in the Basic Tax Register. The 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to make entries regarding the petitioner's properties in the remarks column of the BTR as 'converted land' and to complete the steps in making consequential changes in records. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent-Village Officer made entries in the BTR.
In spite of Ext.P1 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and in spite of the changes made in the Revenue records as evidenced by Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent-Village Officer is refusing to accept the tax and issue land tax receipt reflecting the change of the nature of the property in the tax receipts. The land tax receipts still describe the petitioner's land as 'paddy land'. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the Village Officer in this regard. Thereafter, the Village Officer issued land tax receipt endorsing the changed nature of the land.
The petitioner thereafter approached the 5th respondent-Secretary to the Panchayat and submitted an application for Building Permit for making additional construction and for regularisation of the construction already made. The 5th respondent has now issued Ext.P9 communication to the petitioner stating that the land where building construction is made, which is sought to be regularised by the petitioner, is mentioned as Nilam in the Data Bank and therefore only after receiving orders from the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, application submitted by the petitioner can be considered.
The petitioner submits that his land was erroneously included in the Data Bank. Even before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the owner of the property had obtained permission for utilisation of the land for purposes other than paddy cultivation. Paddy was not cultivated in the year 2008 in the property. Therefore, the property of the petitioner should not have been included in the Data Bank. The refusal of the 5th respondent in processing the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of construction of the building is therefore illegal and unsustainable.
The 7th respondent-Agricultural Officer filed a counter affidavit in the matter. The 7th respondent stated that a site inspection by the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer on 03.08.2022 found that the property is bounded on one end by a road and a building on the other end. Other nearby areas are found to be reclaimed by freshly deposited ordinary earth and was paved with granite stones. Therefore, it is evident that the property was not converted prior to 12.08.2021 on which date the Act, 2008 came into force.
The 7th respondent further submitted that as per the KSREC report pertaining to the property as of 2008 there were trees only on the southern boundary of the property and the rest of the land lay as cultivable fallow land. Therefore, the LLMC in its meeting held on 11.07.2018 decided that the property being cultivable land is not liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
Ext.P1 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer issued on 15.05.1996 would show that the property in question was found not to be cultivated with paddy for a long period. During the enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 1996, the Tahsildar reported that no problems like waterlogging will arise due to conversion of the land. The Tahsildar further reported that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation.
Once the petitioner or predecessor-in-interest of the property of the petitioner has obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the owner of the land gets the rights to use the land for other purposes permitted. Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer would show that the owner of the land was permitted to use the land for all purposes other than paddy cultivation. Inclusion of the land in the Data Bank was therefore not justified.
The submission of the 7th respondent–Agricultural Officer is that on inspection, the land was found fit for paddy cultivation and it was hence included in the Data Bank. The KSREC report produced by the 7th respondent as Ext.R7(b) would show that though the land of the petitioner was observed as paddy land long ago, the plot was observed under agricultural fallow land with scattered plantation in the southern side in the data of year 2008. This would indicate that the owners of the property had converted the land pursuant to the permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Furthermore, Ext.P1 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer would indicate that before granting permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, an inspection was conducted and the Tahsildar had specifically reported that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation. In such circumstances, this Court finds that there was no justification for including the land of the petitioner in the Data Bank. At any rate, the denial of Building Permit and rejection of the petitioner's application for regularisation of building construction in the land cannot be justified when the petitioner has a KLU order in his support and the respondents have already effected change in the nature of land in the Revenue records.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P9 and directing respondents 4 and 5 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for Building Permit and for regularisation of building construction in accordance with law. Orders on the application submitted by the petitioner should be passed within a period of one month. Respondents 4 and 5 are further directed to take necessary steps to remove the land of the petitioner from the Data Bank by publishing appropriate erratum notification.