High CourtsSingle Bench

Wilson K.V vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 KL CK 0190

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 28928 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 385 words
1.

The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The land is comprised in Survey No.292/2012 of Perinjanam Village, Kodungallur Taluk. Total extent of the land is 45 cents. The application was considered pursuant to the direction in the judgment in WP(C) No.16381 of 2017 dated 16.05.2017.

2.

The application has been rejected on 21.08.2020 stating that it cannot be considered as the request is for utilising the land for the construction of a building.

3.

Admittedly, the application was submitted under the KLUO prior to incorporation of Section 27 A of Act 28 of 2008. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to utilise the land for other purposes.

4.

KLUO is a subordinate legislation issued under the Essential Commodities Act,1955. The very purpose of the KLUO is to augment food cultivation. Looking at the scheme of KLOU, in the frame work of Essential Commodities Act it can be seen that such exercise of power under KLOU is required only for the purpose of augmenting food cultivation and for the cultivation of the food crops which where in cultivation. The impugned order does not state that the land is required for any cultivation of food crops. What stated is that permission cannot be granted for construction of a building. If the land is not required for any cultivation of food crops which where in cultivation, the Collector under KLUO cannot withhold permission.

In the light of the fact that the land is not required for any cultivation of food crops, I am of the view that impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is declared to have the permission and the permission under Clause 6 of the KLUO is for utilising the land for other purposes. There is no necessity to remit the case back to the Collector for fresh consideration, as no purpose would be served by such exercise. If the petitioner intends to construct a commercial building, local authority shall act u pon this declaration and grant permit in accordance with law, without insisting any further orders from the Revenue Authority under KLUO or under Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.