J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2021 In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P2, P4 and P7 orders and to direct the 3rd respondent to make necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner further seeks to direct the 4th respondent to consider his application for Building Permit.

2. The petitioner holds 2 Acres and 63.2080 cents of land in Kuttoor Village in Thrissur District. It, in fact, is a dry land for more than 25 years and has different types of trees standing thereon, having 20 to 30 years of age. The property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. On 01.07.2015, the petitioner made an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. This Court as per Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.33799/2016 directed the petitioner to obtain satellite pictures and approach LLMC.

3. The Sub Collector passed Ext.P3 order declining to convert the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P3 order. In the appeal, the 2nd respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner passed Ext.P4 order requiring the petitioner to file application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner thereupon preferred a revision petition before the Government. On revision, Ext.P7 order has been passed directing the petitioner to avail remedies under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner would contend that his property is lying as a dry land for the last more than 25 years and hence the Act, 2008 will not apply. The petitioner moved an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and his application should have been considered under that Order. The petitioner’s property, according to him, is removed from the Data Bank. On such grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P7 and to correct the Basic Tax Register.

5. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit and contested the writ petition. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioner’s land is fallow land in 2010, as per the KSREC report. However, the Report shows that the plot was predominantly under agriculture practice in the year 2007 and the trend continued even thereafter. The petitioner’s property cannot be permitted to be converted for construction activities, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner was advised to resort to the Act, 2008.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 3, 5 and

6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

7. As the land of the petitioner is recorded as 'Nilam'

in the Basic Tax Register and since the petitioner has made application for using the land for other purposes before the introduction of Section 27A of the Act, 2008, the respondents ought to have considered the application of the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Any subsequent amendments to the Act, 2008 cannot adversely affect the claim of the petitioner. To that extent, Ext.P7 which compels the petitioner to resort to the provisions of the Act, 2008 is unsustainable.

In such circumstances, Exts.P2, P4 and P7 orders are set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders thereon within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of with the said direction.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/24.08.2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32036/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

24/10/2016 IN WPC NO.33799/32016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

13.10.2017 PASSED BY THE RDO, THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

21/12/2017 IN WPC NO.111755/2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

14.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND R