Applications must be reconsidered when prior requests were unjustifiably rejected without reasoning.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.R1(a), P25 and P28 orders and also for a consequential direction to take up the application submitted by the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 [for short, ‘the KLU order’] and to grant permission to the petitioner to use her property for any other purpose, notwithstanding Ext.P25.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 60.70 Ares (150 cents) of land comprised in Survey Nos.143/1 and 143/2 of Guruvayur Village in Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. The petitioner has purchased the said property by way of three sale deeds, which are produced as Exts.P1 to P3. After purchase, mutation was effected and tax was remitted in the name of the petitioner as evident from Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that the property is a pucca dry land and that there are around 150 coconut trees in the property, all of them are aged either 35 or 40 years old and these trees were in existence before 04.07.1967, the date of coming into force of the KLU order.

3. The petitioner would contend that the above factual position conclusively shows that the properties had been reclaimed long before 12.08.2008, the date on which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 [for short, ‘the Act, 2008’] came into force. The petitioner submits that there is no paddy cultivation either in this property or in the near vicinity for the last several decades and that her property is surrounded by several commercial and residential buildings and comes within the jurisdiction of the Guruvayur Municipality, adjacent to the famous temple.

4. As early as on 14.06.2006, the petitioner preferred an application bearing No.B4-25574/2006 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order seeking permission to convert the property into plots and to reclaim the same. The 2^nd respondent obtained a report from the Principal Agricultural Officer as well as the Tahsildar, Chavakkad, regarding the status of the land. The Principal Agricultural Officer, as early as on 11.10.2006, submitted Ext.P5 report pointing out that there are around 100 coconut trees aged about 30 to 40 years. Though the said report was forwarded to the office of the 1st respondent, no orders have been passed on the said application. When the Data Bank was prepared, the property was included with an entry that it was reclaimed 30 years back, as evident from Ext.P6 copy of the relevant pages of the Data Bank. The petitioner submits that, subsequently, the property has been removed from the Data Bank also. Since no orders were passed on the KLU permission application preferred by the petitioner in 2006, she submitted yet another application before the 1^st respondent seeking permission under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order on 01.09.2012, as evident from Ext.P7. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Tahsildar seeking correction of the Revenue Records, which was rejected as per Ext.P10. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No.12890 of 2013 and the same was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Collector, Thrissur, seeking permission under the KLU order. Thereupon, Ext.P12 representation was filed. So as of now, there are three applications pending before the 1^st respondent-District Collector, seeking permission under the KLU order; application dated 14.06.2006 bearing file No.B4- 25574/2006, in which Ext.P5 report is filed