The court established that the conservation provisions do not apply to reclaimed lands not classified as 'paddy' or 'wet' at the Act's commencement, allowing for alternative uses under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

JUDGMENT

The issue involved in all these cases is similar and hence dealt with together.

2. The petitioners are owners of the different extents of property comprised in the concerned survey numbers situated in the Malappuram district. According to the petitioners, the land in question was reclaimed years back and it is neither a 'paddy land', nor a 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2 (xviii) of Act 28 of 2008, though it has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioners is that , eventhough they had approached the Revenue Authorities by filing necessary representation for effecting correction in the records, it did not turn to be fruitful. Hence these writ petitions.

3. Pursuant to the applications filed by the petitioners for conducting a spot inspection, an Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed in each case. After conducting the spot inspection, Advocate Commissioners have filed report in the concerned cases, which stands in favour of the petitioners.

W.P.(C) No. 9985 of 2013 and connected cases.

4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed, that, as far as the land in W.P.(C) No. 10212 of 2013 is concerned, the same stands included in the 'Data Bank Register' and this being the position, the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008 will be attracted to the said case.

5. The law has been declared as per the decision rendered in JafarKhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC 523] that, the provisions of the Conservation of Kerala paddy land and Wet land Act are applicable only in respect of the lands which are lying as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. Since the materials on record do not reveal that the property is a 'paddy land' or 'wet land', the grievance of the petitioners has to be considered with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen 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 any purpose other W.P.(C) No. 9985 of 2013 and connected cases.

appropriate purpose. It has been further made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Vs. Killimangalam Panchal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka Smooham (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'.

6. After hearing both the sides, the petitioners in W.P.(C)

Nos. 9985 and 14621 of 2013 are directed to file a fresh application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the second respondent/District Collector, upon which same shall be considered in the light of the decisions cited supra and the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalized in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

7. In so far as W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2013 is concerned, since the land in question is stated as included in the Data Bank Register, the correction has to be effected in the said Register also. If any correction or deletion is to be made in the Data Bank Register, it has to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is the law declared by this Court in Castlerock Project and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Revenue Divisional W.P.(C) No. 9985 of 2013 and connected cases.

Officer [2013 (3) KLT 545]. In the said circumstances the above petitioner is relegated to file a proper representation before the addl. 6th respondent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; upon which, the same shall be considere