-----------------------
The petitioner is in ownership and possession of total extent of 8.58 Ares of property comprised of 6.32 Ares in Survey No.6741/1 and 2.26 Ares in Survey No.674/3 in Elamkulam Village. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property situated in Survey No.6741/1 having an extent 6.32 Ares is shown as purayidom in the draft data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land And Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner submits that he is entitled for declaration in view of the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161).
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In several cases this Court held that permission should be obtained from the Collector for utilising the land for other purposes than agricultural purposes. The illegal reclamation cannot be regularised by correcting the entry in the Basic Tax Register or revenue records. Challenging the Division Bench decision of this W.P.(C).No.18433 of 2014
2
Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi v. Jalaja Dileep [2014 (1) KLT 161] an SLP was filed by the State vide S.L.P. (Civil) No.3172 of 2014 and the Supreme Court has admitted the above case and issued notice to the respondents.
3. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Reliance Industries v.Commissioner of Land Revenue [2007 2 KLT 850] and submits that this property is located in residential zone and inview of the above judgment no permission is required under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed in this matter. The Report of the Commissioner is also placed before this Court. The Commissioner Report would indicate that the property of the petitioner is situated in a busy commercial cum residential area. The property of the petitioner is situated on the southern side of Sahodaran Ayyappan Road immediately opposite to Little Flower Church at Elamkulam. It is also submitted that the subject property is appeared to be a dry land by its lie and nature. In view of the factual situation as W.P.(C).No.18433 of 2014
3
pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner and also taking note of the fact that the property is situated in a busy commercial zone, I am of the view that that even without any permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the property of the petitioner can be treated as purayidom. The petitioner can utilise the land for any other purposes in accordance with law. Therefore, even without correcting any details in the basic tax register or obtaining permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the petitioner is free to undertake any construction activities treating this property as a 'purayidom'.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/