Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P M Manoj disposed of a writ petition by a landowner seeking revenue record changes on the basis of an earlier order issued under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioner contended that the Clause 7 order, which directed cultivation of crops such as plantain, vegetables and tubers, should be treated as a valid permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of the land and for altering its tenure in the Basic Tax Register. The Court held that a Clause 7 order, even if it permits or directs cultivation of crops other than paddy, cannot be construed as a Clause 6(2) permission for conversion or for changing entries in revenue records, and directed that any request for change of tenure for the remaining land must be pursued before the statutory authority, to be decided within six months.

The writ petition was filed by the owner of land measuring 105.81 Ares in specified re-survey numbers, along with another contiguous property of 50 Ares with a building, together stated to total 155.81 Ares in Kunnumma Village, Kuttanadu Taluk. The primary challenge was to conditions in an order passed by the third respondent, and the petitioner also sought a declaration of entitlement to use 105.81 Ares for cultivating plantain, vegetables and tubers, claiming that the direction in that order amounted to permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.

Also Read: Demolition Affecting Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported By Clear, Cogent, Site-Specific Evidence Of Illegality: Supreme Court

The petitioner had earlier obtained permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of a limited strip (6 metres wide and 125 metres long) to provide access to the 50 Ares property, based on an order dated 17.12.2013. It was later found during inspections on 07.01.2015 that, relying on that permission, the petitioner had reclaimed a larger extent than permitted, leading to directions to inspect and take steps regarding unauthorised reclamation. The judgment sets out the inspection findings about coconut trees, suitability for cultivating specified crops, irrigation channels and surrounding paddy cultivation. It records rival submissions on maintainability/res judicata and on the statutory route under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as opposed to seeking entries under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

The Court stated that “The challenge raised in this writ petition is primarily against certain conditions prescribed in Ext. P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent.” It recorded the petitioner’s claim that the direction amounted to KLU permission: “This entitlement is claimed on the strength of the direction given by the 3rd respondent, asserting that it constitutes a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.”

On the limited nature of the earlier permission and subsequent reclamation, the Court recorded: “Originally, the petitioner obtained permission under Clause 6(2) for converting a limited extent of land… This conversion was specifically for a strip of land 6 meters in width and 125 meters in length.” It further stated: “it was later realised that, on the strength of the order dated 17.12.2013, the petitioner had reclaimed a much larger extent of property.”

On maintainability, the Court observed: “The maintainability of this writ petition must be considered because it raises a challenge against Ext. P5 order, which the petitioner has already challenged in two other writ petitions.” It recorded: “The petitioner contends that he is only challenging certain conditions of Ext. P5… This contention does not appear acceptable to me.”

On the petitioner’s attempt to treat Ext. P5 as Clause 6(2) permission, the Court stated: “This contention is also inapplicable here, as Ext. P5 order cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2).” It recorded the factual basis for Ext. P5 being under Clause 7: “The Ext. P5 order dated 07.01.2015 was issued under Clause 7 of the KLU Order to prevent the unauthorised conversion of land.”

The Court stated the scope of benefits claimed: “the petitioner did not obtain an order under Clause 6(2) to convert the entire land… The benefits available under Rule 12(17) and Section 6A of the Land Tax Act can apply only to that specific extent of land (having a width of 6 meters and 125 meters length…) alone.”

Also Read: Police Confession Of One Accused Cannot Convict Co-Accused Without Independent Evidence; Kerala High Court Acquits Man In Theft Case

It also recorded the legal position on the alternative remedy: “If the petitioner intends to change the tenure of the remaining land, the only remedy available is to approach the statutory authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.” The Court declared: “Ext. P5 order cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2)… An order issued under Clause 7… cannot be construed as a permission under Clause 6(2).”

The Court recorded that “If the petitioner intends to change the tenure of the remaining land, the only remedy available is to approach the statutory authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.” It directed that “The petitioner may prefer an application under Section 27A, and the respective authorities shall consider the same within a period of six months from the date of preferring such an application.”

“It is further declared that Ext. P5 order cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2).” It concluded: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above.”

 Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Roy Chacko, Advocate; Sri. K.C. Vincent, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Sri. Y. Jafarkhan, Senior Government Pleader.

Case Title: Jossy Chacko v. State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:6221
Case Number: WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
Bench: Justice P.M. Manoj