The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 38.90 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.324/5 and 268/10 in Vettikkavala Village, Kottarakkara Taluk. The petitioner submits that this is a reclaimed land long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”). The petitioner approached the District Collector for utilising the land for putting up of automobile work shop. This property is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. However, this property is planted with coconut trees much before the Act 28 of 2008. This is evident from Ext.P3. The petitioner's request has been rejected as per Ext.P3 stating that the petitioner has reclaimed the land in violation of the KLUO.
The petitioner preferred and appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner also affirmed the decision of the Collector by Ext.P5. It is challenging these orders, this writ petition is filed.
2. 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.”
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. In Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706] it was held that even if land was already converted that is no bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLUO. Therefore, if the property is not reclaimed by contravening provisions of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of Clause 6 of KLUO.
The petitioner's request is only for putting up auto mobile work shop. The Collector has no case that any of the food crops is being cultivated in this land. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case, the permission can be granted to the petitioner to establish auto mobile work shop. The purpose of KLUO is only to ensure that food crops are available and to eliminate scarcity of the food. Keeping the objectives of the KLUO and also the right of individual, a balanced decision has to be taken in those circumstances. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be a direction to the Collector to grant permission to the petitioner to put up auto mobile work shop within a period of two weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln