Petitioner challenges Ext.P14 an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer refusing to grant conversion permission to the petitioner for running a retail outlet in petroleum products on the ground that Clause-6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 does not permit conversion of land for any other purpose other than agricultural purposes. Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 reads as under: Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop.(1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.
[Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-clause and sub- clause (2), removal of tree-growth, whether partial or total, on any land cultivated with cardamom shall be deemed to be an attempt to convert or utilise such land for a purpose other than cultivation of cardamom.
(2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.
[Provided that except in the case aof lands under cardamom cultivation, no permission under sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2) shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is converted or attempted to be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised is paddy utilization or fish culture:
Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally 2. The above provision does not indicate that conversion can be permissible only for cultivation of food crops. In fact, Clause 6 indicates that no holder of any land which has been under cultivation with any food crop shall be converted or utilised for cultivation of any other food crop or for 'any other purpose' except under and in in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. 'Any other purpose' apparently includes purposes other than cultivation of food crops. It is based on the factual situation of the land involved in the matter that the revenue authorities have to take a decision as to whether conversion is permissible. Once it is observed that conversion is possible, it has to be further considered as to whether conversion can be permitted for the purpose required by the applicant. It is purely a question of fact and the authority can exercise the discretion as to whether the conversion can be granted or not. It is not possible for the authority to form an opinion that conversion cannot be permitted other than for agricultural purposes. This issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sunil v. Killimangalam – Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511].
Under these circumstances this writ petition is disposed of as under :
Ext.P14 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE jm/