Applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order require thorough scrutiny and cannot be dismissed without an inquiry.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of

69/2 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.52/1 in Block No.36 of Kunnathunad Village in Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration for classification of land in the Basic Tax Register as ‘Purayidam’ in the light of the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2014 (1) KLT 161]. However, without prejudice to the above claim, the petitioner seeks that he may be permitted to approach the District Collector for utilising the land for other purposes. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 draft data bank. It is stated in the draft data bank that the petitioner's land is shown as 'dry land' with residential building of more than ten years. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P4 report prepared by the Village Officer. 2. This Court inPraveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2)

KHC 499] held as follows:

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

3. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward , Nellulpadaka Samooham [ 2012 (4) KLT 511 ] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under Clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. InPraveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under Clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

4. InJoseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [ 2014 (1) KLT 706 ] it was held that even if land was already converted that is no bar in considering the application under clause 6 of KLUO . Therefore, the properties are not reclaimed by contravening provisions of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the 'Collector' has to consider such application in terms of Clause 6 of the .

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case and the permission granted to utilize the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the District Collector within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the District Collector after obtaining report from the Agricultural Officer, shall take a decision to grant permission to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes. Needful shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with this writ petition before the respondents for compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.