The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the District Collector invoking powers in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. This property is not seen included as paddy or wetland under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). The petitioner has reclaimed the land and constructed an industrial building. The petitioner approached the District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for the purpose of utilising the land for other purposes. It seems the District Collector has rejected the request for the reason that the petitioner has converted the land without obtaining necessary permission from the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is further stated that illegal act cannot be regularised by
WP(C).No.24621/2014-C.
2 an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
2. Admittedly building is constructed in the land.
The question is whether the petitioner has reclaimed the land in violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not a criteria to determine the permission to be granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The District Collector has power under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order permitting to establish an industrial unit. See the Judgment of this Court in Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham (2012 (4) KLT 511). The District Collector has no case in Ext.P6 that this land is fit for any other agriculture purpose. The reclamation of the land is not a bar in considering the application in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. See the Judgment of this Court in Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014 (1) KLT 706). Therefore in view of the declaration of law by this Court in Joseph John's case, the reclamation of the land is not an impediment to grant permission to the petitioner. The object of land utilisation is to ensure
WP(C).No.24621/2014-C.
3 availability food crops. Therefore, the District Collector has to find that if the permission is granted it will result in deprivation of availability of food crops. Land in question is not utilised for any cultivation, I am of the view in such situation, land can be utilised for any other purposes permitted under the law. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already put up an industrial building, I am of the view that this is a fit case that permission can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly Ext.P6 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the District Collector to grant permission to the petitioner utilise the land for other purposes as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P3. Needful shall be done within a period of three weeks.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)
Kvs/-
// true copy //