This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to make necessary corrections in the revenue records with respect to the property owned by the petitioners and to make use the land for other purposes. Petitioners are the owner in possession of 8 cents of property in Survey No.275/1 A2 in Vadakkekara Village, Paravoor Taluk in Ernakulam District. Ext.P7 is the application to classify the land as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records. Petitioners submit that without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, they may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.
2. The Collector has power under 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 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. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO.
5. It is admitted that this property is not classified as nilam or wet land in the draft data bank. It is discernible from Exts.P3 and P6 that the properties are surrounded with dry land and there are many planted trees.
6. In view of the above, I am of the view, this is a fit case where permission can be granted to utilize the land for other purposes. Writ Petitioners shall approach the District Collector, Ernakulam within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order. The District Collector, Ernakulam shall consider such application within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Sbna/02/12/14 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.