The reclaimed dry land can be utilized for industrial purposes under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, despite being misclassified in revenue records.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in both these cases are stated as owners of the different extent of the property situated in concerned survey Nos. of Vengola village. According to the petitioners, the land in question is 'dry land' having been effected reclamation decades ago and that the petitioners are running ply wood factories in the concerned properties. According to the petitioners, though the lands in question are pucca 'dry lands', the same have been described as 'Nilams' in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though the petitioners have preferred necessary petitions [Exts. P22 and P7 respectively] before the District Collector/first respondent for effecting correction in the revenue records so as to enable the petitioners to enjoy the properties in a proper manner, the same are still to be considered by the said respondent. Hence the challenge.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent/District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P22 representation in W.P.(C) No. 28504 of 2013 and Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 28516 of 2013 within a reasonable time.

4. The law has been declared as per the decision rendered inJafarkhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC 523] that the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008 are applicable only in respect of the land which were lying as 'paddy land' and 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court inPraveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner ( 2010 (2) KLT 617 ) that, if the property concerned is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land', the application if any preferred, is to be considered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , so as to enable the party to make use of the property for other appropriate purpose. It has been further made clear by a Division Bench of this Court inSunil Vs, Killimangalam P anjal 5t h Ward Nellulpadaka Samooham (2012 (4) KLT 511) that the land reclaimed prior to the commencement of the relevant Act can be made use of, even for 'Industrial purpose'.

5. In the said circumstances,the first respondent/District Collector is directed to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P22 representation in W.P.(C) No. 28504 of 2013 and Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 28516 of 2013 preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions cited supra. The proceedings, as above shall be finalized after hearing the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the concerned writ petition before the first respondent/District Collector for further steps.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

lk