The petitioner is the owner and in possession of the properties comprised in Survey Nos.85/3-2, 85/2, 85/3-3 of Arakkapady Village. The petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee by Ext.P10 to classify the above land as reclaimed land. According to the petitioner, these properties were 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 that by appearance itself, it can be discerned that these properties are to be treated as ‘dry land’. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the draft data bank, it is included as reclaimed land. If it is classified as reclaimed land in the draft data bank, necessarily, the petitioner is entitled to seek permission before the Collector in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for W.P.(C) No.29109 of 2014 2 short, the ‘KLUO’). The petitioner has approached the first respondent by Ext.P11 under Clause 6 (2) of the KLUO.
2. 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.”
3. 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 W.P.(C) No.29109 of 2014 3 KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.
4. 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, 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, the District Collector, Ernakulam, after calling for report from the Agricultural Officer as to the status of the properties, shall take appropriate decision in terms of Clause 6 of the KLUO within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln