Sona Babu vs State of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and Village records with respect to the property owned by the petitioner and to make use of the land for other purposes. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.12 acres , 10.12 acres , 12.96 acres and 1.94 acres in Survey Nos. 750/pt, 753/pt and 755/pt of Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur taluk. Ext. P1 is the application under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the "KLUO").

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 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.

It is submitted that the properties of the petitioner mentioned in Ext. P1 have been reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008. It is also submitted that in draft Data Bank these properties are entered as reclaimed land.

In view of the above, the property cannot be treated as a paddy or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. 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. Therefore the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Thrissur with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order. The District Collector, Thrissur 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.