Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 313 (KER)

Devikalyani B. W/o Nanda Kumar v. State of Kerala

2026-03-25

P V Kunhikrishnan

body2026
JUDGMENT : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers: "(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P14 from the 6 th Respondent and to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P14 order of the Local Level Monitoring Committee declining to delete the Petitioner’s 22.60 Ares of Property comprised in Re- Sy.No:120 in Block No:15 of Athiyannoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram District from Ext.P2 Data Bank and to change the classification of the land from the basic tax register. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents to change 22.60 Ares of Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:120 in Block No:15 of Athiyannoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram District from Exhibit P2 Data Bank and to change in the classification of the Land from the Basic Tax Register in the light of the directions in the Judgments of this Hon’ble Court. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents to accept Rs.63,574/- being the fair value of 22.60 Ares of Property of the Petitioner calculated as per Ext.P3 comprised in Re-Sy.No:120 in Block No:15 of Athiyannoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram District in the light of Geo Peter Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others in 2019 (4) KHC 400 taking into consideration of the application submitted by the Petitioner dated 28/01/2016 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court and proceed for conversion of the property and to change in the classification of the Land from the Basic Tax Register. (iv) To dispense with filing of English translation of Vernacular Documents. (v) To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." [SIC] 2. Petitioner is in absolute title, possession and enjoyment of 22.60 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.120 in Block No.15 of Athiyannoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram District obtained by virtue of Settlement Deed No.2281/2013 of Neyyattinkara Sub Registry, is the submission. It is submitted that the petitioner effected mutation of the property in Thandaper Account No.7449 and is properly paying tax as evident from Ext.P1 tax receipt. The above property is wrongly included in Ext.P2 Data Bank by stating the status as Wet Land, is the submission. It is submitted that the petitioner effected mutation of the property in Thandaper Account No.7449 and is properly paying tax as evident from Ext.P1 tax receipt. The above property is wrongly included in Ext.P2 Data Bank by stating the status as Wet Land, is the submission. However, in the remarks column of Ext.P2, it has been mentioned that there are yielding coconut trees in the property. The petitioner submitted an application for conversion of the property on 23.01.2016 and the 2 nd respondent called for a report. The 5 th respondent submitted Ext.P3 report, Mahazar, location sketch and a calculation sheet stating that the above property is a coconut plantation having 40 years age and it is a reclaimed land and that the adjacent properties are coconut plantations and in the Data Bank register, it is stated as coconut plantation, and however in the BTR, it is stated as Wet Land. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short ‘LLMC’) to delete the property from the Data Bank and filed W.P.(C) No.5148/2017. This Court passed Ext.P5 interim order and the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 along with Ext.P5 before the 6 th respondent for consideration. Thereafter, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by Ext.P7 Judgment. The 6 th respondent LLMC rejected the application by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5896/2022. This Court as per Ext. P9 judgment, allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext. P8 order. This Court also directed the 6 th respondent to consider the application in the light of the observations in the judgment. It is the case of the petitioner that she produced Ext. P9 judgment along with Ext. P10, and the 6 th respondent forwarded the judgment to the 3 rd respondent as per Ext. P11 without following the directions in Ext. P9 judgment. The petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.3054/2024 and this Court by Ext. P12 judgment closed the contempt and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court. The counsel for the petitioner sent Ext. P13 notice to the 6 th respondent to comply with the directions in Ext. P9 judgment and it was not considered, and the petitioner again filed Contempt Case (C) No.644/2025, and the Government pleader produced Ext. P14 order in the contempt case stating that the 6 th respondent complied the directions in Ext. P9 judgment. P13 notice to the 6 th respondent to comply with the directions in Ext. P9 judgment and it was not considered, and the petitioner again filed Contempt Case (C) No.644/2025, and the Government pleader produced Ext. P14 order in the contempt case stating that the 6 th respondent complied the directions in Ext. P9 judgment. Accordingly, this Court closed the contempt case as per Ext. P15 Judgment. The 6 th respondent rejected the application as per Ext. P14 on the ground that as on the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short ‘Act, 2008’), the plot was suitable for paddy cultivation and the property is waterlogged with water flowing drainage channel. It is submitted that, Ext. P14 runs contrary to the directions of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. The petitioner also relied on the judgments of this Court in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 (5) KHC 490 and Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector and Others, 2020 (2) KHC 94 . Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P9 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, contending that the petitioner has to make an application under Form5, as the application filed under Rule 3(a), for regularization of the unauthorized reclamation of land could not be considered, as the section was deleted on 23.11.2016. The said stand of the Government is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 490 ] wherein this Court held even after the amendment of the Rules on 30.12.2017, an application can be preferred before the Local Level Monitoring Committee. 5. Though Ext.P8 notices the existence of coconut trees aged more than 27 years, the only reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner to remove the property from the data bank was that the same was waterlogged. The same cannot be a reason either to include the property as paddy land or wetland more so in the light of the judgment of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association & Another v. District Collector Ekm and Ors. The same cannot be a reason either to include the property as paddy land or wetland more so in the light of the judgment of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association & Another v. District Collector Ekm and Ors. [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ] wherein it was held that merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during rainy season or otherwise, it cannot be termed as paddy land or wet land going by the Paddy Land And Wet Land Act, 2008. 6. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, “paddy land” is defined as all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. As per Sec.5(4), the Local Leval Monitoring Committee have the power to prepare the data bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions based on satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner. A reading of the above would show that what is to be included in a data bank are the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland. Of course, taking note of the definition of paddy land as mentioned above, such an exercise to find out whether a property is a paddy land or whether it is cultivable or non-cultivable has to be ascertained taking into account the natural features of the land whether it is fit for cultivation or not. The most relevant aspect therefore is to find whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. 7. Given the above discussion, since there is no finding in Ext.P8 that the property is paddy field or cultivable one, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly quashed. The most relevant aspect therefore is to find whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. 7. Given the above discussion, since there is no finding in Ext.P8 that the property is paddy field or cultivable one, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee of which the 6th respondent is the convener to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed as above.” 5. In paragraph No.4 of the above judgment, this Court relied on the judgment of this Court in Lalu P.S. ’s case (supra), wherein this Court held that even after the amendment of the Rules on 30.12.2017, an application can be preferred before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short ‘LLMC’). Thereafter, Ext.P14 order was passed rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. 6. This Court perused Ext.P3 report submitted by the Village Officer to the District Collector. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the same: 7. In the light of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P14 will not stand. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, Ext.P3 report is dated 05.03.2016 and Ext.P4 is dated 20.01.2017. But, there is no dispute to the fact that the property mentioned in Ext.P3 is the same property of the petitioner. Now, an affidavit is filed by the 3 rd respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the same: “5. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court by interim order dated 17.11.2025 directed the LLMC/Agricultural Officer concerned to forward the papers with respect to the application of the petitioner to the authorized officer. 6. It is submitted that the papers from the LLMC/Agricultural Officer was received in this office on 27/02/2026. The respondent after receiving papers from the LLMC/Agricultural Officer, issued a formal letter to the petitioner dated 02.03.2026 directing here to submit a Form 5 application through the online platform to consider the same. Even after, issuance of letter dated 02.03.2026 the petitioner has not submitted Form 5 application through online. The respondent after receiving papers from the LLMC/Agricultural Officer, issued a formal letter to the petitioner dated 02.03.2026 directing here to submit a Form 5 application through the online platform to consider the same. Even after, issuance of letter dated 02.03.2026 the petitioner has not submitted Form 5 application through online. This respondent is prepared to consider the application on merits and at the earliest if the same is submitted by the petitioner through online mode. 7. It is submitted that the delay in processing is solely due to the non-submission of the mandatory form 5 by the petitioner through the online mode. The Third Respondent remains committed to complying the direction of the Hon’ble Court immediately upon receipt of the formal application. Hence in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept the above affidavit on the file.” 8. This Court in paragraph No.4 of Ext.P9 judgment clearly stated that the LLMC has to consider the application. There is no dispute to the fact that Ext.P9 judgment became final. If that be the case, I am of the considered opinion that the 6 th respondent has to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P3 report and mahazar which is extracted above. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext.P14 order is set aside. 2. The 6 th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the above extracted portions of Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.