Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 67.90 ares in Survey Nos.743/1, 743/2 and 743/pt and also in Survey No.749 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk. Petitioner has approached this Court for classification of the land as dry land based on the decision of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161). A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is stated that the land comprised in Sy.No.749 is included in the Draft Data Bank as nilam. The petitioner has a case that this property was reclaimed long before the Act 28 of 2008.
2. I am of the view that if the petitioner has such a case, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct the details regarding resurvey No.749. If the petitioner files an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Local Level Monitoring Committee shall consider such application in the light of the decision of this Court in Castlerock Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2013 (3) KLT 545]. If it is found that this property is reclaimed long before the Act 28 of 2008, necessary W.P(C).No.9807 of 2014 A 2 correction shall be made in the draft Data Bank. Needful shall be done by the Local Level Monitoring Committee within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3. In respect of other properties, it is stated in the counter affidavit that these properties are not included as nilam or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. It is admitted that these properties have been reclaimed long before the Act 28 of 2008. 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. 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.”
In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another Division Bench of
W.P(C).No.9807 of 2014 A 3 this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also.
4. In view of the above, the property cannot be treated as a paddy or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. 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. Therefore the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Thrissur with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order. The District Collector, Thrissur shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/14/10/14