Joy V.P. vs The Village Officer

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—Petitioners have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of Clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 7 Acres and 27 cents of land in Thuravoor Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. The said properties were purchased by the petitioners as per registered sale deed No. 323/11 dated 5.2.2011 for an extent of 56.87 Ares in Sy. No. 531/4/11, Sale deed No. 324/11 dated 5.2.2011 for an extent of 03.93 Ares in Sy. No. 531/4/2, Sale deed No. 372/11 dated 10.2.2011 for an extent of 19 Ares, in Sy. No. 497/14, Sale deed No. 559/11 dated 17.2.2011 for an extent of 75.37 Ares, in Sy. Nos. 530/8-2 530/7-2 531/1-2, 531/4-2 Sale deed No. 5098/07 dated 5.9.2007 for an extent of 5.60 Ares, in Sy. No. 497/5, Sale deed No. 3961/03 dated 18.10.2003 for an extent of 18.40 Ares in Sy. No. 489/11/13, Sale Deed No. 662/03 dated 24.1.2003 for an extent of 18.20 Ares in Sy. No. 489/9, Ares in Sy. No. 497/1/2, 6/2, Sale deed No. 507/1/06 dated 25.10.2006 for an extent of 16.60 Ares in Sy. No. 489/12, Sale Deed No. 172/1/06 dated 30.12.2005 for an extent of 13.4 Ares in Sy. No. 497/7/17, Sale deed No. 4073/1/12 dated 22.9.2012 for an extent of 12.55 Ares, in Sy. No. 531/5/2, Sale deed No. 375/1/06 dated 23.1.2006 for an extent of 5.60 Ares in Sy. No. 489/10/2 Sale deed No. 374/1/06 dated 23.1.2006 for an extent of 19.26 Ares. According to the petitioners, this property is a converted land long before the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is further submitted that in draft data bank the present status of the property is shown as purayidam. It is also submitted that the petitioners are entitled for utilisation of land for other purposes.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are 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 petitioners'' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioners are entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are 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 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."

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 Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, , it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.

The learned Government Pleader submits that some of the properties of the petitioners are shown as nilam in the draft data bank. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer to find out whether any of the property is classified as nilam in the draft data bank. If any of the property is classified as nilam leaving the aforesaid property, the application shall be considered for utilising the land for other purposes under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.