The Court affirmed that conditions restricting land use under KLU Orders, contrary to the Essential Commodities Act, are unlawful when land is not needed for food crop production.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

a) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and P3 and to quash condition no.1 therein.

b) Issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of application in Form A and re-assessment of land tax under the Land Tax Act , 1961 in view of Exhibit P2 and P3.

c) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the documents produced in the writ petition which are in the vernacular language.

d) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice.” [sic]

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of 26 ares 84 sq. metres of land in Bharananganam Village, Meenachil Taluk comprising of 8 ares 10 sq.meters in Re-Sy.No. 345/2-3, 10 Ares 64 sq. meters in 345/2 and 8 ares 10 sq.meters in 345/2-2 in Block No. 35. In view of the non-suitability for paddy cultivation and the entry in the Data Bank as “15 years old coconut and rubber”, Exts.P2 and P3 permissions under KLU Order were allowed in 2015 is the submission. Exts.P2 and P3 contains various conditions, out of which condition No.1 prohibiting the changing of the categorization in the revenue records, which is without authority and against the law is the submission. The petitioner challenges condition No.1 in Exts.P2 and P3.

Hence, this writ petition.

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

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Jacob N.V. v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 2897]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

4. “The purpose and object of KLU Order are to ensure the production and distribution of food crops mentioned under KLU Order. KLU order is a subordinate legislation issued under the Essential Commodities Act , a Central Legislation. The scheme of the will not come into operation unless there is a scarcity of food relatable to the crops mentioned in KLU Order. Thus in order to augment food production, KLU Order vests the Collector with a power to direct the holder of the land to cultivate the land with such food crops as mentioned in KLU Order. This provision is only an enabling power for the Collector to direct the holder of the land to cultivate such food crops. The permission as envisaged under Clause 6 of KLU Order for the holder of the land to utilize the land for any other purpose has to be considered in the background of the and KLU Order. If the Collector is of the opinion that the land is not required for cultivation of food crops, the Collector cannot withhold permission to the holder of the land to utilize the land for other purposes. The scope of enquiry as contemplated in such circumstances is whether the land is required for augmenting production and distribution of food crops as mentioned in KLU Order or not. It is to be noted that the utilisation of the land by a holder in accordance with law is not fettered by the provisions of KLU Order. The enabling power conferred upon the Collector is only to carry out the objectives of the and KLU Order issued thereon. The Collector cannot put a fetter on the utilisation of the land by the holder of the land if the land is not required for cultivation of food crops. KLU Order cannot be used as an authority to put a fetter on the utilisation of the land by a landholder in accordance with law. Having found that the land is not required for any public purposes as envisaged under the read with KLU Order, the Collector could not have imposed such onerous conditions on the right of the l