The entitlement to utilize reclaimed land for non-agricultural purposes under Kerala law is dependent on prior proof that it isn’t fit for cultivation.

J U D G M E N T

---------------------

Petitioner is the owner of 27.20 Ares in Re-Survey No.74/2 in Block No.13, Elakkadu Village. The above land is presently dry land despite the fact that the same is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. In the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as Act 28 of 2008), the above land is a reclaimed land. Petitioner submitted a request for utilising the land for other purposes in terms of Kerala Land Utilization Order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court inRevenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.

3. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (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 KLUO 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 KLUO 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.”

4. 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.

5. InJoseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [ 2014 (1) KLT 706 ], it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent, to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of decision as above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/