Petitioner is the owner in possession of 20 Ares situated in resurvey No.387/14 of Ayarkunnam Village, Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam district. Ext.P3 is the application to classify the land as dry land in the Basic Tax Register. Petitioner has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottyam in terms of clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short, “the KLUO”) to make use the land for other purposes.
2. 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
W.P(C).No.29715 of 2014 L 2
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.”
3. 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.
4. It is submitted that the property of the petitioner is reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008. The property of the petitioner is not included in the draft data bank. It is held in W.P(C).No.29715 of 2014 L 3 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.
In view of the above, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam shall consider Ext.P3 application after verifying the draft data bank and take appropriate decision in the matter based on Ext.P3 within a period of two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/11/11/14