Petitioner is the owner in possession of property in survey Nos.240/5, 240/19 and 240/3-3. Petitioner approached this Court for declaration to change the entries in Basic Tax Register in view of the judgment of this Court in Jalaja Dileep Vs. RDO and Ors. 2012(3) KLT 333). However, it is further submitted that without prejudice to the above claim, petitioner may be permitted to file an application for utilizing the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.
2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the property is survey Nos.240/5 and 240/19 are classified as nilam in the draft data bank. However, it is submitted that the property in survey No.2403-3 is classified as converted land before 32 years before the enactment of Act 28 of 2008.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the properties aforementioned are lying contiguous and by appearance itself, it can be treated as dry land. It is further submitted that inclusion in the draft data bank is erroneous without taking note of the nature of the land.
4. The power to correct the details in the draft data bank is vested with the Local Level Monitoring Committee. If the property in survey Nos.240/5 and 240/19 are lying contiguous with resurvey No.240/3-3 and all these properties remain as dry land, I am of the view, power can be exercised by the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct details in the draft data bank. Therefore, petitioner shall approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct details in the draft data bank. If such an application is received from the petitioner within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall conduct site inspection and find out whether these properties can be treated as paddy land as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008. If these properties cannot be treated as paddy land as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily the details of the property has to be corrected in the draft data bank. Needful shall be done within a further period of six weeks. Once details are corrected, the petitioner is free to approach Collector with clause (6) of the KLUO.
5. The Collector has power under KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The
Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499] held as follows:
“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”
6. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another
Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.
7. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO. Therefore the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Ernakulam with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order after correcting details in the draft data bank. The District Collector, Ernakulam shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Sbna/06/11/14 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.