Changes in land characteristics necessitate reevaluation under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, despite previous classifications.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

“a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application and grant permission to the petitioner as prayed for in the said application.

b) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 7.61 Ares in Re.Sy.No.156/6 in Block No.27 of Ramapuram Village, Meenachil Taluk. Though the nature of the property is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, actually it is a 'garden land' (purayidom) and is not included in the Data Bank Register as evident from Exts.P2, copy of the draft Data Bank Register. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the second respondent seeking for permission to utilise the land for other purposes, which is still to be acted upon.

3. Heard the learned Spl. Government Pleader as well.

4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the issue ( in some other cases ) has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court inPraveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner ( 2010 (2) KLT 617 ), wherein it has been held that, if the provisions of the ' Act 28 of 2008 ' are not applicable, necessarily, the matter has to be considered in tune with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order . The circumstance under which the property came to be classified making the entry in the BTR, was with reference to the nature of the land at the time of effecting the entries in the BTR and by passage of time, substantial changes may have taken place, whereby the nearby properties also may have assumed the nature of reclaimed/garden land, with constructions and other developments.

5. By virtue of the factual position narrated in the writ petition, it is seen that, there is no case for the respondents that the property involved in this case is a 'paddy land' as defined under Section 2(xii) or 'wet land' under Section 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008 . The factual position that the property remains as a 'reclaimed land', is virtually conceded and there is no dispute regarding the same. This being the position, the physical nature of the property has necessarily to be looked into, so as to redress the grievance of the petitioner; more so, in view of the law declared by this Court, as mentioned hereinbefore.

6. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered by the second respondent/competent authority in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in Praveen's case (cited supra). Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 representation under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/competent authority for further steps.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

lk