C.T. Chacko vs The District Collector

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for changes in the Basic Tax Register in view of the nature and lie of the property, that was shown therein.

It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above property is not included in the Draft Data Bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Jalaja Dileep, , to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the "Act 28 of 2008"). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioner''s right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as the property is no longer fit for any cultivation.

The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the "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 properties are 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 Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, 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."

In Sunil Vs. Killimangalam-Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham, 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.

In the light of the provisions as above, I am of the view that the petitioner can approach the first respondent with a request in terms of clause 6 of the KLUO within 10 days from today. If the request is so received from the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same after adverting to Exts.P5 and P6, which clearly shows the nature and type of the land in existence on the date of issuing Exts.P5 and P6. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application submitted by the petitioner.

It is made clear that this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner''s right to establish any claim based on Jalaja Dileep''s case (supra). No costs.