Land that has been validly converted prior to statutory enactment is not subject to subsequent classification restrictions regarding usage.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of properties in Re.Sy.No.25/Pt. 26, 27 [old Sy.Nos.203/6; 215/5, 6, 12; 215/11, 1; 215/11/2; 10/1] of Eloor Village, has approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 order issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 order issued by the 1st respondent, whereby, the construction activities that were undertaken by the petitioner in connection with the construction of a warehouse in an industrial area, were sought to be prevented on the ground that the construction activities were being carried out in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisiation Order [hereinafter referred to as the 'KLU Order' and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as the '2008 Act']. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, by Ext.P4 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.2.2009, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had obtained an order permitting a conversion of the land in question for use for non-agricultural activities. While Ext.P4 order W.P.(C).No.6681/2017 2 contemplated that the validity of the order was only for a period of six months, and also stipulated certain conditions to be adhered to while effecting the conversion, it is not in dispute that there was no action taken by the respondents for cancelling Ext.P4 order within the period of validity of the said order, or any action taken thereafter alleging violation of any of the conditions. One must presume therefore that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had already converted his land in accordance with Ext.P4 order before the date of its expiry. The petitioner, it would appear, had purchased the land from his predecessor after conversion, and immediately thereafter, approached the local authority with an application for a building permit and a land development permit in connection with the construction activities for a warehouse on the said land. Exts.P9 and P10 are orders passed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent Municipality, permitting the petitioner to construct the building in accordance with Ext.P10 building permit. It is not in dispute that the construction of the building is now proceeding in accordance with Ext.P10 building permit, and Exts.P12 and P13 orders now issued to the petitioner cite only the alleged violations under the KLU Order and the 2008 Act, as a reason to interdict the petitioner from proceeding with the W.P.(C).No.6681/2017 3 construction activities.

2. When the matter came up for admission, this Court had called for a report from the LLMC as regards the nature and lie of the land so as to ascertain whether there was any merit in the stand taken by the respondents as regards the nature of the land on which the construction was being effected. The report was called for notwithstanding the fact that, the building permits referred to above, and the orders passed by the RDO in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, had clearly suggested that the land was not capable for classification as a paddy land or wetland for the purposes of the 2008 Act. A perusal of the report that has been filed by the Agricultural Officer, pursuant to the direction of this Court, would indicate that the land in question, which may have been paddy land prior to the 2008, had been converted after June, 2008, prior to the enactment of the 2008 Act. The said report of the Agricultural Officer finds support in the report submitted before him by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [hereinafter referred to as the 'KSREC'], which also indicates that there was a change in the user of the land prior to 2008. It is therefore evident that the land, on W.P.(C).No.6681/2017 4 which the construction is presently being carried on by the petitioner, is not one that merits classification as a paddy land or wetland for the purposes of the 2008 Act. Under said circumstances, I dispose