M.K. Vijayan vs State of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the property owned by the petitioner, shown as nilam to purayidom.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 18.30 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 372/12 of Ennakkad Village in Chengannur Taluk.

It is admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the above properties are 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 property has 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 this 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 view of the matter if the petitioner wants to construct a building, I am of the view, it is a fit case where discretion can be exercised under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur with an application to utilise the land for other purposes under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the application in the light of the discussion as above within a further period of six weeks.