The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5, an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam alleging that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 28 of 2008) by reclaiming the land situated in Re-survey No.190/4 in Block No.29 of Edamulakkal Village. The petitioners submit that the land has been reclaimed long before the enactment of Act 28 of 2008 and planted with rubber. The petitioners also submit that this property has been used for rubber plantation and for agricultural purpose much before the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. Therefore, the petitioners submit that Ext.P5 order is illegal. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P3 draft data bank wherein the property is classified as reclaimed land with coconut trees and plantains.
2. Considering the entries in the data bank also, I am of the prima facie view that this property cannot be classified as 'nilam' or 'wet land' as on the date of the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. In view of the above, the petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for utilising the above land for any other purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for a report from the Agriculatural Officer and shall consider the application in accordance with law.
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, the properties are not reclaimed by contravening provisions of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of Clause (6) of KLUO.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i). The petitioner shall file an application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause (6) of the KLUO.
ii) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer and shall pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the application.
iii) Till final decision is taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, status quo shall be maintained.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln