The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the property situated in Survey Nos.478/2, 3 and 4 of Kulathummal Village. The copy of the draft data bank produced before this Court shows that the properties are planted with plantain. The petitioner submits that these properties have 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) and it is not classified as Nilam or Wetland under the draft data bank. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application before the second respondent under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967( for short, the “KLUO”).
2. This Court in Praveen K.v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499] held as follows:
W.P.(C) No.23490 of 2014 2 “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 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 W.P.(C) No.23490 of 2014 3 provisions of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of clause 6 of KLUO.
Therefore, the second respondent shall consider Ext.P5 in the light of the above judgments after calling for a report from the Agriculture Officer and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln