2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 PETITIONER(S): SURESHBABU P.S., AGED 45 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, GEORGE STREET, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686631. BY ADVS. P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI DIVYA C BALAN RESPONDENT ( S ) : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030. 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686661. 4 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),MUVATTUPUZHA, TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686661. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKUZHA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, PLAKUZHA P O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM,, PIN – 686662. SMT.PREETHA K.K, SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.83 Ares of property comprised in the Survey No.265/3-6 of Palakuzha Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. The said property was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 10.02.2022. 2. Earlier, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 before the 3rd respondent, as early as on 13.12.2021. The said application was submitted in view of the fact that, the property was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, eventhough the same was not included in the Data Bank. The said application was considered by the 3rd respondent and it resulted in Ext.P3, by which, the same was allowed. In Ext.P3 order, a specific finding was entered into, to the effect that the property owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the property was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008. 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 3 3. Ext.P3 order was passed after being convinced of the said fact, by permitting the petitioner to reclaim the said land. In the meantime, the petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 document. Therefore, being the owner and occupant of the property, and the person competent to enjoy the benefits as per Ext.P3 order, he submitted an application before the Tahasildar (Land Records), the 4th respondent herein for changing the assessment of property. However, while processing the said application, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner on the reason that, the property was included in the Data Bank, and therefore, the Form 6 application was declined. In these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction or to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 application within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, order or direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents’ extent the order of conversion of property in favour of the Petitioner which is confirmed already on the erstwhile owners of the property as per Exhibit P3 order. 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 4 iii. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case”. 4. I have heard Sri.P.D.Subrahmanian Nampoothiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K., learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether it is justifiable on the part of the respondents to deny the benefits of Ext.P3 order, passed by the 3rd respondent on the application submitted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in Form 6. It is true that, in the subsequent notices, it is stated that the property is included in the Data Bank and, therefore, the Form 6 application cannot be considered. 6. However, the crucial aspect to be noted in this regard is that, in Ext.P3, a specific finding was entered into by the 3rd respondent to the effect that the property does not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land, and that it was reclaimed prior to 12.08.2008. Since it is an order passed 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 5 in exercise of the statutory powers vested upon the 3rd respondent, the same cannot be ignored, while processing the application submitted by the petitioner for the consequential benefits of the said application. 7. It is true that Ext.P3 order was passed in favor of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, but that would not preclude the petitioner from enjoying the benefits of the same. This is because, by virtue of the purchase of the said property by following the legal procedure contemplated in this regard, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, and therefore, all the rights and liabilities attached with the property are available and applicable to the petitioner. The possession of law in this regard is already settled by this Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment namely Somasekhara Panicker M.K. v. State of Kerala 2024 (1) KHC 18. 8. Of course, it is stated in the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent that, while processing the application submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P4, it was noticed that the property was included in the Data Bank. The learned 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 6 Government Pleader also asserted that, as per the report of the Village Officer, the survey number of the property was included in the Data Bank. 9. However, as observed above, Ext.P3 order was passed by the 3rd respondent, with a specific finding that the property is not a paddy land or wet land and it is reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Therefore, the said order cannot be withdrawn or revised, by the 3rd respondent, as he does not have the power to review the said order. 10. Therefore, under no circumstances can any order nullifying Ext.P3 order be passed by the 3rd respondent or any authority subordinate to him. Even if the said property is included in the Data Bank, the same has to be removed by the authorities concerned, or the same cannot have any consequences in the light of Ext.P3 order, which is passed as early as on 01.04.2022. 11. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential benefits of Ext.P3. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 7 consider the Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner and change the description of the property in the revenue records as contemplated under Section 27(C) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which involves Ext.P5. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE mea 2025:KER:25652 WP(C) NO. 36928 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36928/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 226/2022, DATED 10/02/2022 OF SUB REGISTRY KOOTHATTUKULAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.KL07070402521/2024, DATED 08/05/2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A14- 880/2022/R-DIS, DATED 01.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/08/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A14/889/2024/L-DIS, DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/09/2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN M. K. SOMASEKHARA PANICKER, & OTHERS. V STATE OF KERALA, (2024 (1) KHC 18)