The petitioners are claim to be the absolute owners and in possession of the following properties:
The first petitioner is in possession of property of 12.92 Ares in Sy.No.196/1B, 182/2-1, 182/2-2 and 196/1A of vaikom Village, Vaikom Taluk. The 2nd petitioner is in possession of property of 10.92 Ares in Sy.No.182/2-2 and 182/2-1 of Vaikom Village, Vaikom Taluk. The 3rd petitioner is in possession of property of 10.92 ares in Sy.No.182/2-1 and 196/1B of Vaikom Village, Vaikom Taluk; and the 4th petitioner is in possession of property of 15.78 ares in 196/1A, 196/1B and 183/22B of Vaikom Village, Vaikom Taluk.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted under clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
WP(C).No.24224/2014-C.
2
3. It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are not included in the Draft Data Bank as nilam or wetland.
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
WP(C).No.24224/2014-C.
3 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 petitioners have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala by Ext.P4 series of applications. In view of Ext.P4 there shall be a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 in the light of the above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Kvs/-
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)
// true copy //