George Baby vs The Tahsildar

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 18.75 cents of property comprised in resurvey Nos. 650/13 and 650/14 in Block No. 8 of Peringanadu Village, Adoor Taluk. Petitioner seeks a direction in terms of the judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and others, to classify the property as dry land in the basic tax register. However, petitioner submits that without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, he may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

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 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 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.

It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, 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.

It is admitted that property of the petitioner is recorded as converted in 1998 and there is a building in the property. Considering the nature of land and also the extent of land, I am of the view, this is a fit case where permission can be granted to the petitioner to utilize the land for other purposes. Therefore, petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor 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.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.