Petitioner's property having an extent of 12.14 Ares and 65.65Ares of land in resurvey No.449/6 of Chelamattom Village, Kunnathunad taluk, Ernakulam district is classified in the Basic Tax Register as nilam. Petitioner submits that the property is a dry land. Petitioner seeks a declaration in the light of judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333). However, without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, petitioner may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short, “the KLUO”).
2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that in the draft data bank this property is classified as purayidam.
3. The Collector has power under 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 W.P(C).No.7981 of 2014W 2
property is 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 W.P(C).No.7981 of 2014W 3 down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.
5. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO.
6. Considering the nature of land in the draft data bank as purayidam, I am of the view, permission may be granted to the petitioner to utilize the land for other purposes. Therefore, petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of Clause (6) of the KLUO after correcting details in the draft data bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer Muvattupuzha shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Based on such application, permission shall be granted to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sbna/19/11/14 Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.