Petitioner is the owner of property in resurvey No.53/11 in Block No.11 of Kuttoor Village in Thiruvalla Taluk having an extent of 32.20Ares. Petitioner's case is that this property is a dry land and converted much before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, “the Act 28 of 2008”). Petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla first respondent in terms of clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. It is on account of non consideration of above application, petitioner has approached this Court. Petitioner relies on Ext.P6 report of the Agricultural Officer. This would indicate that there are coconut trees and other trees and also there is also a pond.
2. This Court directed the Local Level Monitoring committee to conduct inspection and find out whether this property can be classified as paddy land as on the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. It is submitted that data bank of the Kuttoor grama panchayath has been published on 23.02.2012. However, it is admitted that at the time of commencement of Act 28 of 2008, land is not a paddy land. It is further submitted that since notification is issued, Local Level Monitoring Committee has no power to correct the details in the data bank classifying the property as paddy land.
3. In view of the above, it is declared that petitioner's property situated in resurvey No.53/11 is corrected in the draft data bank as a reclaimed land before the Act 28 of 2008 and it no longer can be treated as paddy land or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. Consequent upon such declaration, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 under Kerala Land Utilization Order.
4. 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 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.”
5. 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.
6. 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. In view of the above judgments, after hearing the petitioner, a decision shall be taken within a period of two months in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO based on Ext.P5.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sbna/27/11/14 Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
The correction order dated 15.01.2015 in I.A.No.592/2015 in W.P(C).No.23532/2014 forms part of this judgment and it is tagged along with this judgment, vide order dated 15.01.2015 in I.A.No.592/15 in W.P(C).No.23532/2014 Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)