J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2022 The petitioner and his wife are owners of 2.18 Acres of land, out of which 1.24 Acres of land is comprised in Survey No.776/10 and 0.94 Acre is comprised in Survey No.780/10 in Piravom Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk of Ernakulam District. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to pass orders on Exts.P1 and P3 applications preferred under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

2. The petitioner states that the land of the petitioner is not paddy land. The petitioner wanted to utilise the land for non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, Ext.P1 application dated 04.04.2017 was filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

3. As directed by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner preferred yet another application for the same purpose on 25.05.2017. While the applications were pending, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act, 2008', for short) was enforced. As directed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application under Section 27A of the Act 28 of 2008 read with Rule 12(13) of the Rules, in Form-9. The said application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P16. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P17 appeal, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P18.

4. The petitioner would submit that the KLU applications were submitted by the petitioner prior to the enactment of the Act, 2008. When those applications were pending, it was at the instance of the respondents that the petitioner submitted application in Form-9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner is invoking the provisions of the KLU Order, 1967. The rejection of an application under the Act, 2008 cannot be a restraint on the respondents in considering the petitioner's application under the KLU Order.

5. The Government Pleader resisted the writ petition and controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner has already approached the competent authorities under the Act, 2008 for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records. Those applications were rejected and the rejection was upheld by the appellate authority. When change in the nature of the land is declined by the competent authority already, consideration of Ext.P1 would not give any positive result to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore misconceived, contended the Government Pleader.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 gives a right to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the KLU Order for permission for using the land for non- agricultural purpose. It is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before the enactment of the Act, 2008. Rejection of an application made by the petitioner under the Act, 2008 by itself cannot be a bar for the petitioner to pursue an earlier application filed under the KLU Order.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, before whom Exts.P1 and P3 applications are pending, to consider those applications in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The other prayers in the writ petition are left open.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/15.07.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16384/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

4.4.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED

4.4.2017 ISSUED FROM AKSHAYA CENTER, PIRAVOM.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25.5.2017.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

5.2.2018 BEARIN