A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. The petitioner was granted a permission to utilise the land covered by the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'K.L.U. Order' for short) situated in Resurvey 175/9 having an extent of 10 cents of land out of 88 cents of land as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 25.4.2015. The permission was granted with the following conditions.

"1. Any earth deposited/removed in the plot will have to be done with the prior information.

2. There should be obstruction to agriculture in the surrounding land.

3. No water channel shall be obstructed in the process.

4. There shall be no discharge of harmful substance/chemical/fertilizer into the surrounding lands.

5. All work should be carried out without any disturbance to persons residing in the area.

6. Cultivation must be carried out as per the food crops referred in the K.L.U. Order, 1967.

7. The land cannot be used for commercial activity.

8. The conversion should be completed within a maximum period 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. After completing the conversion activity the petitioner must obtain a completion certificate from this office.

It appears that in violation of the above conditions, the petitioner has reclaimed the entire land. On account of this, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the order dated 25.4.2015 as per the order dated 30.5.2015. The order of cancellation is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 18813/2015.

2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 18541/2015 challenging the imposition of condition under C1.6 of the K.L.U. Order by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

3. This Court called upon to decide the validity of the imposition of the condition under K.L.U. Order as well as the cancellation of the order on account of the violation of that condition. In W.P.(C) 18541/2015, a third party got impleaded. They alleged that on account of the violation of the Revenue Divisional Officer's order, their land is affected.

4. K.L.U. Order enables the Collector to grant permission to utilise the land for any other purposes. As per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 25.4.2015, he has granted permission to utilise 10 cents of land towards the road for the purpose of construction of residential building. It is not discernible in what basis he has restricted the 10 cents of land. It is further ordered that no commercial activity can be undertaken in the above land.

5. This Court is of the view that the purpose of exercise of power in terms of C1.6 of the K.L.U. Order, is to secure objectives of C1.7 of the K.L.U. Order. C1.7 of the K.L.U. Order, gives the power to the Collector to ensure that food crop which was in cultivation can be ordered to be cultivated by the holder of the land. Therefore, if food crop which were in cultivation in the land required to be cultivated, the Collector can order the holder of the land to cultivate the food crops in the land in terms of C1.7 of the K.L.U. Order and to permit the petitioner to utilise the land for other purpose if bona fide required for other purposes. There is no finding in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer that any of the food crop as referred in the K.L.U. order were in cultivation or in cultivation in the land. Therefore, in the absence of such findings that the land is required for cultivation under C1.7 of the K.L.U. Order, the Sub Collector ought not to have restricted reclamation of only 10 cents of land. If the petitioner bona fide request for even commercial purpose, he is free to do so. Therefore, this Court is of the view that restriction of reclamation of 10 cents of land for commercial purposes is to be set aside. However, the Collector is competent to impose such other terms and conditions to protect the neighbouring property. There is no infirmity with such condition in the order.

6. It is pointed out by the intervenor in W.P.(C) No. 18541/2015 that due to the illegal reclamation of the property of the petitioner in t