Kerala High Court
Rasiya Ali vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
1
2026:KER:48571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2026 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 42467 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
RASIYA ALI,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O MANJALAMKUZHI ALI, MANJALAMKUZHI HOUSE,
PANANGAMKARA, RAMAPURAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
BY ADV SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERITHALMANNA, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
3 THE TAHASILDAR [ LAND RECORDS],
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.
SRI AHAMED FAZIL E C, GP WITH ADDL. AG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
2
2026:KER:48571
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
“i.To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the Original of Ext P10 and quash
the same;
ii.To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reassess the
basic tax with respect to the property of the petitioner and
correct the entry in the Basic Tax Register from ‘nilam’ to
‘purayidom’ on Ext P7 Form A application on the strength of Ext
P2 KLU Order ;.
iii.To dispense with the production of the English translation of
the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition;
iv.to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem
just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v.Allow the writ petition [civil]” [SIC]
2. The petitioner obtained Ext.P2 order under the
Kerala Land Utilization Order on 17.04.1995 for changing
utilization of the land for running small scale industries.
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
3
2026:KER:48571
That apart, the petitioner also obtained building permit
No.160/02-03 from Perinthalmanna Municipality is the
submission. The petitioner, even before the
commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short Act 2008) had constructed
a workshop and service centre in the property by name
MAK India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Perinthalmanna managed
by her son is the submission. While so, the petitioner’s son
expired and as there was no one to look into the affairs of
the workshop, the construction was got dismantled and the
business was stopped. It is the case of the petitioner that
on a wrong advice, the petitioner submitted a Form-6
application under Section 27A of the Act 2008 and suffered
Ext.P5 and P6 orders. The petitioner, thereafter submitted
Ext.P7 application in Form A before the 3 rd respondent –
Tahasildar (Land Records), Perinthalmanna to correct the
entry as to nature of land in the revenue records and
approached this Court with WP(C) No.13466/2023
challenging Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 orders. In WP(C)
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
4
2026:KER:48571
No.13466/2023, this Court passed an interim order
directing the respondents therein to pass orders on Ext.P7
application without payment of fee. Ext.P7 was rejected by
Ext.P8 order which was also the subject of challenge in the
writ petition is the submission. The above said writ petition
was thereafter disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment quashing
Exts.P5, P6 and P8 orders and further directing the 3 rd
respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 application submitted by
the petitioner in Form A, taking into consideration of the
veracity of the KLU order within a period of two months.
Ext.P7 application again rejected vide Ext.P10 order stating
the reason that there is no small scale industry started in
the property and hence clause 6 of the KLU order is not
complied. The petitioner submitted that Ext.P10 order will
not stand. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader with
Additional Advocate General.
4. This Court perused Ext.P9 judgment. It will be
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
5
2026:KER:48571
better to extract Ext.P9 judgment:
“The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed on Form 6 application.
Petitioner submits that subsequently he has preferred
Ext.P5 application in Form A which has now been rejected
as per Ext.P6 relying on Clause 12(17) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which
is admittedly struck down by Ext.P7 judgment reported in
Sealand Builders Pvt Ltd v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Fort Kochi and Others (2020 (5) KLT 56).
2. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of
88.5 cents of land in Survey Nos.97/1 in Perinthalmanna
Village in Perinthalmanna Taluk in Malappuram District.
Petitioner submits that the property is covered by the order
issued under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization
Order which is produced as Ext.P1 and the date of the order
is 17.4.1995. Petitioner submits that a building permit has
been issued in the said property as permit No.160/02- 03.
Petitioner relies on the judgment in Cheranallur Grama
Panchayat v. Joe Thattil (2020 (5) KLT 669) and submits
that if the building permit is obtained prior to 30.12.2017,
provisions of Section 27 A will not come into play. Any how
the rejection of the application as per Ext.P6 is relying on
Rule 12(17) is illegal in as much as the said provision has
been set aside in the judgment in Sealand Builders’s
case.
Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of
directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5
application in Form A, taking into consideration Ext.P1 order
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 20246
2026:KER:48571issued under the KLU order. It is made clear that the
respondent while reconsidering the matter is free to verify
the veracity of Ext.P1 and the condition imposed therein. To
facilitate reconsider the matter, Exts.P2,P3 & P6 are set
aside. Further orders in this regard shall be passed within
an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment.”
5. In Ext.P10, the reason for rejecting the
application is that no small scale industry started in the
property. The Division Bench of this Court in Jacob N.V. v.
State of Kerala and Others {2023 (2) KLT 511] observed
like this:
“4. The purpose and object of KLU Order are to ensure
the production and distribution of food crops mentioned
under KLU Order. KLU Order is a subordinate legislation
issued under the Essential Commodities Act, a Central
Legislation. The scheme of the Essential Commodities Act
will not come into operation unless there is a scarcity of
food relatable to the crops mentioned in KLU Order. Thus
in order to augment food production, KLU Order vests the
Collector with a power to direct the holder of the land to
cultivate the land with such food crops as mentioned in
KLU Order. This provision is only an enabling power for the
Collector to direct the holder of the land to cultivate such
food crops. The permission as envisaged under Clause 6 of
KLU Order for the holder of the land to utilize the land for
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 20247
2026:KER:48571any other purpose has to be considered in the background
of the Essential Commodities Act and KLU Order. If the
Collector is of the opinion that the land is not required for
cultivation of food crops, the Collector cannot withhold
permission to the holder of the land to utilize the land for
other purposes. The scope of enquiry as contemplated in
such circumstances is whether the land is required for
augmenting production and distribution of food crops as
mentioned in KLU Order or not. It is to be noted that the
utilisation of the land by a holder in accordance with law is
not fettered by the provisions of KLU Order. The enabling
power conferred upon the Collector is only to carry out the
objectives of the Essential Commodities Act and KLU Order
issued thereon. The Collector cannot put a fetter on the
utilisation of the land by the holder of the land if the land
is not required for cultivation of food crops. KLU Order
cannot be used as an authority to put a fetter on the
utilisation of the land by a landholder in accordance with
law. Having found that the land is not required for any
public purposes as envisaged under the Essential
Commodities Act read with KLU Order, the Collector could
not have imposed such onerous conditions on the right of
the landholder to use the land for other purposes.
6. Similarly in Joseph v. Revenue Divisional
Officer [2021 (4) KLJ 186], this Court observed that, when
the property has been converted as garden land / dry land /
purayidom on the strength of order under clause 6(2) of the
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
8
2026:KER:48571
Kerala Land Utilization Order or even earlier, the entries in
the Basic Tax Register describing the properties as ‘nilam
or paddy land’ would become redundant and the revenue
authorities are statutorily obliged to pass appropriate
orders in exercise of their powers under Section 6A of the
Kerala Land Tax Act.
7. Similarly in Molly Antony v. Commissioner of
Land Revenue [2020 (3) KLJ 904], this Court observed
that once it is decided by the statutory authority under
Rule 6(2) to grant permission, then the use of the land
cannot be restricted.
8. In the light of the above dictums, the reason in
Ext.P10 will not stand. Therefore, the consequential order
as directed by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment is to be passed
by the authorities concerned.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
1. Exhibit P10 is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent / competent authority will
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 20249
2026:KER:48571reconsider Ext.P7 Form A application, in the
light of the dictums laid down by this Court in
Jacob N.V.‘s case (supra), Joseph‘s case
(supra) and Molly Antony‘s case (supra), as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 01.07.2026
Judgment dictated 01.07.2026
Draft Judgment placed 03.07.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 04.07.2026
W.P.(C) No.42467 of 2024
10
2026:KER:48571
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 42467 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL10021805802/2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR
OF PETITIONER FROM PERINTHALMANNA
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA LAND
UTILIZATION ORDER NO.5856/94(M) DATED
17.04.1995 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA
VALUE ADDED TAX RULES 2005 BY THE SALES
TAX OFFICER/REGISTERING AUTHORITY IN
FAVOR OF MAK INDIA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,
PERINTHALMANNA DATED 5.01.2009
Exhibit P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE
SERVICE CENTER IN THE PROPERTY OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
DATED 27.09.2022 TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
DATED 13.03.2023
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM A
ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER
ADDRESSED TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
30.03.2023
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2023
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.11.2023 IN W.P.[C] NO.13466/2033
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.05.2024
IN THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 PHOTOGRAPH PERTAINING TO APPLICANTS
PROPERTY
