Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43309
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
T THOMAS ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 31801/2013
Reclaimed land can be utilized for non-agricultural purposes under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, subject to permission from the Collector, regardless of prior reclamation timing.
Headnote:
Land - Property Classification - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 Sections 2(a), 6 - The court interpreted provisions allowing for land classification and usage, emphasizing that reclaimed lands could still be utilized under specific conditions even after legislative changes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to classify several properties as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register and wished to use the land diversely, citing the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties were converted land prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, allowing for potential usage under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It ruled the need for formal permission from the District Collector.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could classify the properties as purayidam and utilize the land for purposes other than agriculture under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that reclaimed land can be utilized for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, regardless of the timing of reclamation concerning the legislative changes.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is disposed of; permission for land usage to be considered by the District Collector.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of property on the side of National Highway at Choornikkara, Alwaye. The details of the properties are as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. Land Title Holder. Document Date of Old Re- Area No. purchase. Sy.No. Sy.No. (Ares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas Abraham S/o.Thomas Varghese. 5561/84 29.12.84 386/12 147/14 13.76
2. Thomas Abraham S/o.Thomas Varghese. 5562/84 29.12.84 386/13 147/14 4.45
3. Thomas Abraham S/o.Thomas Varghese. 3216/97 04.10.97 386/6 123/2 15.5
123/3 6.35
4. James Abraham S/o.Thomas Abraham. 4304/84 09.10.84 386/4 123/3 11.88
5. James Abraham S/o.Thomas Abraham. 2007/06 28.03.06 386/1 123/4 4.15
6. Joel Reggie Abraham Grandson of Thomas Abraham. 6553/05 26.11.05 386/3 123/5 7.68
123/5-2 7.67 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner approached this Court seeking a declaration to classify the properties as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register. However, it is submitted that without prejudice to other claim, petitioner may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.
2. This Court as per the order dated 09.10.2014 directed the Agricultural Officer to inspect the property and submit a report about the nature of the property.
3. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that the Agricultural Officer has inspected the property and found that these properties are converted land before the enactment of Act 28 of 2008 . This is also fortified from Ext.P6 proceedings of Sub Collector, Fort Kochi. The Sub Collector refused to exercise the request for change in Basic Tax Register citing lack of power.
5. The Collector has power under 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 property is 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 in Praveen 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.”
6. 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. In Praveen'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.
7. It is held inJoseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner ( 2014(1) KLT 706 ) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008 , it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO . In the light of the above, this is a fit case where permission can be granted to the petitioner to utilize the land for other purposes. As seen from Ext.P6 itself, this being used for lorry parking. Therefore, petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Ernakulam for utilizing the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the . The District Collector shall consider the application and grant permission to th
