This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register with respect to the property owned by the petitioners and to make use the land for other purposes. Petitioners are the owners in possession of 40 cents of property in Survey No.115/7 of Thiruvalla Village. Petitioners submits 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 submitted that the property of the petitioner has been reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008. It is also submitted that in draft Data Bank these properties are entered as reclaimed land.
5. 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, there shall be a positive direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla to grant permission to the petitioners to utilize the land for other purposes. Permission can be granted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to utilize the land for other purposes. It is submitted that a hostel building has been constructed and in that building, reconstruction is proposed.
In view of the above, petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla under clause (6) of the KLUO and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla shall consider the fact that the petitioner has already constructed a building and permission shall be granted to the petitioner to utilize the land for other purposes including reconstruction of building 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 petitioners.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/05/11/14