Petitioners challenge Ext. P6 inter alia contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the said order, has no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner to continue to cultivate the said land as before and to restore the land to the position as on the date of complaint. It is inter alia contended that the report clearly indicates that the property is not included in the data bank particulars prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. However, since the property is shown as 'Nanja' in BTR records, and no conversion is permissible. 2. Apparently, there is no provision under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to permit the R.D.O. to call upon the petitioner to re-convert the land, which is admittedly reclaimed 20 years prior to the date when the order has been passed, which is evident from the report available. If any food crop was being cultivated in the said land, probably the RDO could have interfered in the matter. There is no material to indicate that the property in question comes under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to proceed with the agricultural operations as matters stand now.
Therefore, I am of the view that Ext. P6 has been W.P(C) No. 20440 of 2013 -: 2 :-
issued without any basis and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing Ext. P6.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/