The KLU Order must be sufficiently considered in decisions regarding land use applications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner contends that his predecessor in interest has obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLU Order’), with respect to an extent of 4.04 Ares of property in Vellarkad Village of Kunnamkulam Taluk, for using the land for non-agricultural purposes. However, subsequently, the petitioner, upon realising that the properties were included in the data bank, submitted Ext.P5 application on 01.09.2022 in Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 . By the impugned order at Ext.P7 dated 24.03.2023, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) having rejected the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.T.K. Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of Ext.P7 would show that the afore order has been issued solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no consideration made with reference to the relevance of the KLU Order, stated to have been obtained by the petitioner. The KLU Order obtained by the petitioner has been produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P2 series. The KLU Order has been produced by the petitioner in an earlier round of litigation, also leading to Ext.P6 judgment dated 24.11.2022, whereby the RDO was directed to consider the Form 5 application. However, it is noticed that Ext.P7 has been issued without considering any of the contentions raised. The order at Ext.P7, in my opinion, is a non-speaking order.

4. This Court also notices the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Ekm. v. M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) KLT 155] wherein this Court has categorically found that when the property has been subjected to proceedings under the KLU Order, that also requires to be considered as a case requiring correction in the records.

In such circumstances, Ext.P7 is set aside. There will be a direction to the RDO / authorised officer, to pass orders on the Form 5 application filed by the petitioner afresh, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months, also taking into account the principles laid down by this Court in M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra).

Sd/-