Authority must consider pending applications for land classification under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i.. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilization Order , as evident from Exhibits P1 to P4, and finalize the proceedings thereon at the earliest.

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction, by quashing Exhibits P6 and P7 by finding it as illegal.

iii. To declare that, the petitioner is not liable to remit fee at the rate 10% of the fair value as per Exhibit P6 order for effecting change of classification of the subject matter property in the revenue records from nilam to purayidom.

iv. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

v. Dispense with production of English translation of documents.”

[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of 0.1267 hectors (31.31 cents) of land comprised in Survey No. 90/2 of Aranattukara Village. The above land is recorded as "nilam" in the revenue records is the submission. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the property was removed from the data bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted Exts.P1 to P3 applications in accordance to Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (for short ‘KLU Order’).

Subsequent to the above applications submitted by the petitioner, the Village Officer has conducted the site inspection in the above property, and reported to the Tahasildar (L.R) on 21.11.2017 that the subject matter property is dry land and hence, the permission can be granted. Ext.P2 is the report of the Village Officer to the Tahasildar (L.R) dated 21.11.2017 is the submission. It is also submitted that, because of a legal advise, the petitioner submitted Form 6 application and consequently the same is processed and a fee notice is issued to the petitioner, as evident by Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, the application filed in accordance to Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order is still pending. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, even though Exts.P1 to P3 are the receipts, the authority concerned is not able to locate the file. If that is the case, the petitioner will produce a copy of the applications which leads to Exts.P1 to P3 receipts, and there can be a direction to consider the same, in accordance with law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner will produce the application submitted under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, as evident by Exts.P1 to P3 before the 3^rd respondent, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(ii) If that applications are received, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of applications from the petitioner.

Sd/-