This is writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the property owned by the petitioner as 'dry land' instead of 'paddy land'. 2. The petitioner acquired 1.32.89 hectares of land situated at Kuttoor Village in Thiruvalla Taluk as per 3 assignmentdeeds namely, document No.465/2004, 1016/1999 and 8262/2000 of SRO Thiruvalla.
3. The petitioner's application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order has been rejected as per Ext.P16. It seems that the petitioner also requested to reclassification of land only with application under KLU Order.
4. It is seen from Ext.P4 that this property has been converted long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 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 property has been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008. It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is 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.
6. The Collector has power under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (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.”
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In the light of above, Ext.P16 is set aside. Considering the fact that there exists a residential building in the property and also taking note of coconut trees in the property, I am of the view, the permission can be granted to utilise the land for other purpose. Accordingly, Ext.P16 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to utilise the land for any other purpose within a period of four weeks.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.
dpk