-----------------------
The petitioner is the owner of 51.61 ares in survey Nos.82/1, 1343/4 and 1345/2 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The petitioner submits that there has been no paddy cultivation in the land for more than the past 30 years and the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. In the draft data bank, the land is recorded as converted land. Accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider Exts.P1(a) and (b) applications.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the 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”). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.
3. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the “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 properties are 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.”
4. 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.
5. In Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706], it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.
In view of the facts and law as above, the petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Considering the extent of land, I am of the view that permission can be granted to the petitioner for utilising the land for other purposes after obtaining necessary report from the Agricultural Officer. Therefore, the petitioner shall make an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On receipt of such application, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes after obtaining the report of Agricultural Officer within a period of six weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/