The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of 4.05 and 12.95 Ares of land in survey No.190/3 and 190/4 in Muringoor Thekkumury Village. According to the petitioner, this is a dry land even though it is classified as nilam in BTR. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration in the light of the decision of this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012 (3) KLT 333). However, it is submitted that without prejudice to the above request, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the District Collector, Thrissur for the purpose of utilising the land for other purposes.
2. It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are 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 petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioners are 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.
4. 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 .”
5. 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.
6. The petitioner relies on Ext.P9 report of the Village Officer. This would clearly indicate the nature of the land. It is also seen that there are several buildings in and around the above property. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case where permission can be granted to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Thrissur within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Thereafter, based on such request permission shall be granted to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks. It is made clear that these writ petitions are disposed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to establish any claim based on Jalaja Dileep's case (supra). No costs.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (JUDGE) Kvs/-
// true copy //