Courts emphasize the timely processing of applications under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, highlighting legal obligations surrounding land use permits.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" a) Issue a declaration that the lands included in Exhibit P2 application is eligible for consideration for permission under Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Jacob Boban (Mukthar Ali) case reported in 2025 (1) KLT 804.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2^nd respondent to finalise Exhibit P2 application filed on 01.08.2017 under the provisions of KLU Order itself, without insisting to remit fee based on Exhibit P3.

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

d) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner, the owner in possession of an extent of

12.40 Ares in re-survey No. 236/10-2 and 01.50 Ares in 236/3 in Block No.19 in Manakunnam Village, filed Ext.P2 application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order), 1967, before the 2^nd respondent on 01.08.2017. But, it is stated that the 2^nd respondent did not process Ext.P2 and compelled the petitioner to file Ext.P3, an application in Form 6. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Tahasildar v. Renjith George [2024 KLT OnLine 3102].

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

4. This Court in Tahasildar v. Renjith George [2024 KLT OnLine 3102], observed like this:

“11. The short question that ultimately fell for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the conditions embedded through the 2018 Amendment Act shall apply on pending applications for change of the nature of 'paddy land' to 'non - agricultural purposes'. We may hasten to add here that despite the insertion of a separate definition of 'un - notified land', the legislature has treated both 'paddy land' and 'unnotified land' at par for the purpose of their conversion as non - agricultural lands. The nature of land, whether a 'paddy land' or 'un - notified land' thus becomes immaterial when applying its conversion to non - agricultural purposes. The only issue that survives is whether the conditions introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act can be applied to the applications which were already pending consideration before the amended Act came into force.

12. We do not deem it necessary to delve into the aforesaid question and determine whether the amended Act is retrospective or retroactive in effect. We say so for the reason that the Legislature has explicitly introduced the amended provisions from 30/12/2017 only. At best, the new conditions inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30/12/2017. In other words, all those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme.

13. Our above understanding of the amended provisions, is also in conformity with S.27A(13) of the Amending Act, which mandates that the applications moved after the Amending Act has come into force, shall be decided as per the newly amended provisions. This provision, in our considered opinion, clarifies by implication that such applications which were moved before 30/12/2017, will have to be adjudicated as per the unamended Act.”

5. This Court in Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KLT 804] observed like this:

“2. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, this is against the discussions made in the impugned order. The learned counsel points out that this Court having adverted to R.12(17) of t