The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 95 cents in Survey Nos.136/6-1, 134/6-2 and 134/5A2 of Muvattupuzha Village.
2. In the draft data bank it is stated that the properties have been reclaimed 15 years ago and cultivated with coconut trees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, the 'KLUO'). The petitioner, therefore, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha with Ext.P4 application.
4. The Collector has power under Clause 6 of 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. 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 properties are 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.
Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha to consider Ext.P4 after obtaining necessary report from the Agricultural Officer regarding the details in the draft data bank. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln