Owners may seek permission to utilize land differently if it is not used for its designated agricultural purpose, regardless of earlier classifications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner of having an extent of 8.40 Ares of property comprised in survey Nos. 412/4 and 8.15 ares of property comprised in Sy. No.412/5 of Kurampala Village.

2.The petitioner approached this Court seeking for a direction to the second and third respondents to change the entires in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Register with respect to the property owned by the petitioner as 'dry land' instead of ' paddy land'. It is further submitted that, without prejudice to the above claim, he will be given permission to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order.

3. It is submitted in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that the property is described as wet land in the revenue records. However, the property has been converted before Act 28 of 2008.

4. The Collector has power under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, the ' KLUO ') to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under Clause 2(a) of the which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court inPraveen K.v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2)

KHC 499] held as follows:

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

5. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward , Nellulpadaka Samooham [ 2012 (4) KLT 511 ] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. InPraveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

6. Considering the nature of the land and the fact that the land is not being used for cultivation of any food crops, as contemplated under Land Utilisation Order, I am of the view that this is a fit case where permission can be granted to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes.

7. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer with an application under clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such application, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order.

It is made clear that it is without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach this Court for any claim for reclassification of the land if so warranted .

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.