Aggrieved by Ext.P4 prohibitory order, by which the petitioner was prohibited from converting the paddy land on the ground that it was in violation of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the petitioner has come up before this Court. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings as per Ext.P4 in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20 cents of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed of 2007. According to him, it is a garden land having coconut trees aged more than 15 years as evident from Ext.P1 itself. In the year 2010, she obtained Ext.P2 building permit and consequently, she completed the construction of the building. However, later, Ext.P4 prohibitory order has been issued by the 1st respondent restraining the petitioner from converting the paddy land. The petitioner alleges that though she appeared before the 1st respondent on 04.10.2012 for hearing, he has not finalized the proceedings. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the counter filed by the State, it is stated that there are several houses adjoining the plot and it was converted years back. It is also stated that in the land in question, there is no paddy cultivation and is filled with bushes. A two-storied building was under construction in the said plot and 90% of the construction was completed at the time of the inspection of the Village Officer; it was submitted.
4. This Court, by interim order dated 21.11.2012, permitted the petitioner to continue with the construction at his own risk. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has completed the construction and she is waiting for getting the building numbered by the local authority concerned.
5. Arguments have been heard.
6. Admittedly, the property was purchased as per Ext.P1 by the petitioner in the year 2007. It can be seen from Ext.P1 itself that it is a garden land; and there are coconut trees in the said land. According to the petitioner, she got Ext.P2 building permit in the year 2010 and has started construction. These facts are not disputed. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is admitted that the properties surrounding the petitioner's property are garden lands and the construction of the petitioner's building was almost completed on the date of inspection of the Village Officer.
7. It is settled law that in the case of paddy land and wet land, the provisions of Land Utilization Order do not survive after the coming to force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen K. v. Land
Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and
others [2010 (2) KHC 499 (DB)] observed that even the pending applications under the Land Utilization Order will have to be considered under the provisions of the new Act. As regards the application of the Paddy Land Act, 2008, the status of the land as on the date of coming into force of the said Act has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, evidently, the property of the petitioner is a garden land on the commencement of the new Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the 1st respondent to issue Ext.P4, prohibiting conversion.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed.
It is hereby declared that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Ext.P4 in respect of the property governed by Ext.P1.
The 1st respondent is directed not to interfere with the construction of building of the petitioner, which is permitted by Ext.P2.
It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the local authority to get the building numbered on the strength of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-