IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that historical land classification does not prevent conversion if the land is non-cultivable, allowing petitioners to seek conversion under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is preferred, being aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P10 and P11, whereby these applications for utilisation of land for other purposes under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order have been rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and in possession of 1 Acres 35 Cents and 97 Square Links of land situated in Re Survey Nos. 170/1, 2, 3, 184/2, 3 and 183/6 in Block No.10 of Thiruvamkulam Village, Ernakulam, District. It is further contended that the said property has been lying as a barren land for more than 75 years. The surrounding properties were already developed and the entire property was covered by residential buildings. However, the said property was classified as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records. Even on an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached the then Thiruvamkulam Panchayat which was later merged with Thripunithara Municipality, for getting a development permit. On considering the said application, the Panchayat has already recommended for getting development permit. The said decision of the erstwhile Thiruvamkulam Panchayat is produced as per Ext.P2. This is the circumstance in which the petitioners preferred Ext.P3 application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (in short KLU Order), 1967.

3. For the expeditious disposal of the application, the petitioners have also preferred W.P.(C) No.18413 of 2010. By disposing the said writ petition, a direction was given to the 2^nd respondent to consider the matters in accordance with law, as per Ext.P5 judgment. Thereafter, in compliance with the direction, the 3^rd respondent obtained a report from the 5^th respondent for considering the application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967. For that purpose, the 5^th respondent conducted an inspection of the property and reported that the property has been lying as fallow land for more than twenty years and as per the statement given by the localites, it appears that the land has been lying as fallow for more than thirty years. On an earlier occasion, the District Collector, Ernakulam has given a direction to convert the land after improving the drainage facility and from the reply received from the Greater Cochin Development Authority it appears that the property lies in the residential zone. Due to various reasons like unprofitability in the agricultural sector, non-availability of workmen, scarcity of water and reluctance to work in the polluted water, no agricultural activities were conducted within the property and it is also contended that many farmers have reported that this property is not cultivable.

4. In the light of the application preferred by the petitioners, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short ‘LLMC’) has taken a decision as per Ext.P10. By Ext.P10 report, it is reported by the Agricultural Officer that the property is lying fallow for more than twenty years. The west side of the property is the river Kadamprayar and on the north eastern side lies the paddy land and on the southern side lies the road. If the other basic amenities are improved, it can be utilised for paddy cultivation.

5. On considering the report of the LLMC through its convener, the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P10 order, wherein different reasons are assigned for rejecting the application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. Since the property is having a large extent, the application for conversion is already rejected and it is stated that if the basic amenities are improved, it can be utilised as a paddy field. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a reply received under Right to Information Act from the Zonal Office of the Planning Department, wherein it is specifically pointed out that the properties mentioned in this writ petition are part of the residential zone. On these assertions the petitioner preferred to challenge Ext.P10 decision of the LLMC and P11 decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

6. In