The petitioner is the owner of property having an extent of 2.548 hectors situated in Re-survey No.455 in Block No.13 of Kollengode Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District. It is submitted that though the above property is classified as Nilam in the basic tax register and village records, there is no cultivation in the said land for about 40 years. According to the petitioner, the land has been converted for more than 40 years and therefore the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act is not applicable to the above said land of the petitioner.
2. 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 Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 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 this property is no longer fit for any cultivation. W.P.(C) No.22535 OF 2014 2
3. 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 property is 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 made is a paddy land or a wet land. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU."
4. 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 W.P.(C) No.22535 OF 2014 3 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.
5. In 'Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner' (2014 (1) KLT 706), it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.
6. The petitioner has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad as per Ext.P4 seeking permission under clause 6 of KLUO.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad shall consider the Ext.P4 application in the light of the above within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
S A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
//true copy// P.S. To Judge st/-