Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 843 (KER)

K. S. Thankachan v. District Collector

2017-06-06

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's application, before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and the District Level Authorised Committee (DLAC) for exemption for constructing a homestead, was rejected. 2. The petitioner purchased the above land as per Ext.P1 deed. The petitioner then applied for an exemption under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for short). The petitioner relied on the certificates at Exts.P2 and P3, which evidence that the petitioner does not have any land anywhere else in the locality for constructing a residential house. The petitioner's application before the LLMC, however, was not considered favourably. The LLMC, by its minutes at Ext.P5, found that the petitioner's family has a residential house and, hence, refused to recommend the proposal for exemption. The petitioner then approached this Court with a writ petition. In the writ petition a judgment was passed at Ext.P8. 3. The petitioner sought for a direction to the DLAC to consider the recommendation. The DLAC, as per sub section (8) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act, could not have considered the matter without a recommendation for exemption from the LLMC. In fact, the specific condition under which the LLMC refused to recommend exemption to the petitioner, was the fact of his family owning another piece of land. 4. The petitioner's application was considered by the DLAC and rejected, again, for reason of the petitioner's son having a residence. There is an appeal provided under sub section (6) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act from Ext.P6 order to the District Collector, which was not availed by the petitioner. The petitioner, cites as a reason, the Contempt of Court case filed by the petitioner, in which the order of the DLAC was produced. The Contempt of Court case was closed on 25.01.2017. The petitioner again sought to challenge the same before this Court by the above writ petition, which was filed on 01.02.2017. 5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court, reported in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others – 2015 (5) KHC 103. The Contempt of Court case was closed on 25.01.2017. The petitioner again sought to challenge the same before this Court by the above writ petition, which was filed on 01.02.2017. 5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court, reported in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others – 2015 (5) KHC 103. A reading of the decision indicates that 'Family' as referred under Section 9(8)(ii) of the Paddy Land Act was found to be the family consisting of applicant, his wife and children and it cannot be stretched to an extent to include his father or grandfather. On facts the present case can be distinguished. In the present case, the father claims exemption and the rejection has been on the ground that the family has another property. If each member of the family is excluded according to the person before Court, then, the statutory restriction would be rendered ineffective and otiose. 6. It is also to be noticed that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific words employed in Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act is '... considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land' (emphasis supplied). The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. Here, about 10 cents of paddy land was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing a residential building, that too, in 2014 after the implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008. It is the said land which was sought to be exempted. 7. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption, especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined the claim and a contrary direction would go against the clear statutory interdict. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption, especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined the claim and a contrary direction would go against the clear statutory interdict. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No Costs.