This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the properties, owned by the petitioners, shown as nilam to purayidom.
2. The petitioner claims to be the co-owner of the property having an extent of 16.68 ares comprised in Re- survey Nos.443/2/2, 443/4/1, 443/5 and 443/6 of Thuravur Village, Aluva Taluk in Ernakulam District.
3. It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioner's right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.
5. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the “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 properties are 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. The petitioner has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P4. In view of the above, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider Ext.P4 in the light of discussions afore noted. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that this writ petition is disposed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to establish any claim based on Jalaja Dileep's case (supra). No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)
Kvs/-
// true copy //