This review petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to review the judgment dated 18.9.2014 in W.P.(C)No.19514 of 2014. In this writ petition, this Court has directed the District Collector to consider the application in terms of Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, “KLUO”) .
2. The petitioner submits that he has already obtained permission from the District Industries Centre to establish an Industrial Unit in the property, therefore, without directing the District Collector to grant permission to utilise the land to establish the Industrial Unit, no purpose will be served by directing the District Collector to consider the application in terms of the KLUO.
3. I do not find, prima facie, there is no reason to review the judgment. However, I find that the petitioner's concern is that the District Collector will not consider the purpose for which the R.P.No.785 of 2014 2 permission is required under Clause (6) of the KLUO. The petitioner's case is that the land in question was reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 and other documents to substantiate the contention that this land in question is unfit for any paddy cultivation or for any other agricultural operation. Therefore, before passing an order in terms of Clause (6), those aspect has to borne in mind. If the land cannot be used for any other agricultural purposes, necessarily, the permission shall be granted to utilise the land for other purposes, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner is proposed to start the industrial unit. These aspects also shall be adverted while passing an order in terms of Clause (6) of the KLUO.
The review petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln