Prior valid permission for non-agricultural use under the Land Utilization Order precludes necessity for compliance with later statutory provisions concerning property reassessment.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

The petitioner and his wife are the owners in possession of a property having an extent of 2 Hectares, 05 Ares and 48 Square Meters comprised in Survey Nos. 377/3-2, 377/4-3, 377/3-1-2 and 377/2 of Karumalloor Village. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Ext.P10 order passed by the 3^rd respondent herein by which the application submitted by the petitioner in Form A under Section 6(a) of the KERALA LAND TAX ACT was rejected.

2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

Earlier, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner submitted an application before the 1^st respondent, under Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilization order, 1967 seeking permission to utilize a portion of the property having an extent of 4.6 Acres of land (1 Hector and 64 Ares and 30 Square Meters) for non agricultural uses. Acting upon the said application, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P2 order by which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was permitted to utilize the property having an extent of 4.6 Acres comprised in Survey Nos.377/4, 377/3-2, 377/3-1 and 377/2, for the purpose of establishing a sawmill in the said property. According to the petitioner, the property was thus reclaimed and buildings were constructed for the said purpose. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form A for reassessment of the property under Section 6(a) of the KERALA LAND TAX ACT before the 3^rd respondent. However, as per Ext.P10 order, the same was rejected mainly on finding that, Ext.P2 order cannot be treated as an order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization order. It was also found that, even though Ext.P2 order was passed granting permission to the petitioner to utilize the said property for establishing a sawmill, the petitioner/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner utilized the said property for constructing a godown having an area of 7615.16 Square Meters and therefore, the same is amounting to violation of the said order. Moreover, the 3^rd respondent insisted for an order under the provisions of the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008 for considering the application. It was in these circumstances this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P10.

3. A statement was submitted on behalf of the 3^rd respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition, wherein the averments were incorporated justifying the stand taken by the 3^rd respondent in Ext.P10 order. It was reiterated that, as the Ext.P2 order permitted the petitioner to use the property only for a specific purpose, namely to establish a sawmill, the petitioner could not have utilised the said property for any other purposes. However, it was averred that, the property is not included in the Data Bank.

4. I have heard Sri.Sherry J. Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri.C. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

5. The crucial question that arises for consideration, is whether the stand taken by the 3^rd respondent in Ext.P10 that, Ext.P2 cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order is sustainable or not. In the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is explained that, as per Ext.P2, what was granted by the District Collector is only a lice