The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property comprised in Survey Nos.155/5C, 155/5B, 155/5 and 155/4 in Block No.20 of Keerikad Village, Alappuzha District.
2. The petitioner approached the District Collector, Alappuzha for permission to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, the 'KLUO'). This was declined as per Ext.P8. It is challenging the above, this writ petition is filed.
3. 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 even if land was already converted that is no bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLUO. Therefore, if the property is not reclaimed by contravening provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the 'Act 28 of 2008'), necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of Clause 6 of KLUO It is seen from Ext.P2 that this land was reclaimed long before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner also obtained permission to construct the building and the petitioner commenced construction of the building. It is further seen that there are coconut trees aged more than 30 years. The KLUO is issued under Essential Commodities Act to secure food crops and prevent scarcity of the same. The Collector has no case that any of the food crops mentioned in the KLUO is being cultivated in the land. Therefore, there is no impediment in granting permission to utilize the land for other purposes. Thus, treating this land as dry land for all practical purposes, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner to construct the building in terms of Clause 6 of the KLUO within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In view of the above, Ext.P8 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln