The classification of land as 'garden land' not subject to auction under the KLU Order signifies the need for accurate land categorization prior to enforcement actions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P8 order, as confirmed by Ext.P10. Ext.P8 order is one issued under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 , (for brevity “KLU Order”). Ext.P8 attempted to sell the right, to cultivate paddy in the land owned by the petitioner, through auction. The petitioner filed an appeal from the above order, which has been rejected by Ext.P10 order dated 20.01.2009.

2. The petitioner owns 32.5 cents of land, which, according to the petitioner, is a 'garden land' having around 29 coconut trees of more than 50 years of age. The petitioner's contention is that proceedings were initiated at the instigation of respondents 6 and 7.

W.P.(C) No. 7293/2009 There is said to be a suit filed by the petitioner seeking injunction against respondents 6 and 7, who have residences adjacent to the petitioner's property. The respondents 6 and 7 claimed a pathway through the middle of the petitioner's property. An ex-parte decree was passed. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7 indicates that a petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree. In any event, we are not concerned with the suit, as such, since the claim of pathway would have to be agitated by respondents 6 and 7 in the appropriate forum.

3. Ext.P8 was issued only on the basis of Ext.P11 report of the Village Officer. Prior to Ext.P8, the petitioner was also issued with Ext.P6 under the KLU Order. The photographs produced by the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 indicate that there were paddy lands in the vicinity, but, however, the property of the W.P.(C) No. 7293/2009 petitioner is seen to be a 'garden land' with coconut trees. It is also the contention of respondents 6 and 7 that there is a pathway through the middle of the petitioner's property and that the Panchayath has laid the pipeline for drinking water through the said pathway. In such circumstance, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking to sell the right for cultivation, is not proper. Exts.P8 and P10 are set aside. But this does not lead to any conclusion arrived at by this Court as to the nature of the property.

4. It is also to be noticed that subsequent to Ext.P8 and prior to Ext.P10, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for short) had come into force. In such circumstance, the appropriate authorities could initiate fresh proceedings under the KLU Order or the Paddy Land Act in accordance with the provisions of the said W.P.(C) No. 7293/2009 enactments. This Court has not made any observations with respect to the claim of pathway by respondents 6 and 7 nor has it declared the petitioner's land to be other than 'paddy land'. If the land is said to be described as 'paddy land' in the revenue records or included in the Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act; the petitioner would be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for re-categorization of the land or for conversion of use.

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.