The court emphasized that reclaimed land prior to the enactment of specific laws can be reclassified and utilized differently, subject to proper applications and hearings.

J U D G M E N T

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

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents to consider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P4 report and order to change the description of his property as Purayidam in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner is having 28.40, 11.20, and 21 Ares of land in Resurvey No.94/7, 94/8, 94/9 of Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District. The property is purchased by the petitioner in the year of 2009 as per the sale deed No. 497/09 and 820/09 of Kuruppampapdy Sub.Register office. According to the petitioner, though the property is a dry land it is wrongly shown as wet land (nilam) in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner has constructed two storied building and started a small plastic company and the Panchayat numbered the building as 2/244 of Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue 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 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.”

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. 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.

5. In Joseph 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 the result this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

i) The petitioner shall approach the District Collector Ernakulam with an application to utilize the land for other purposes within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii) The District Collector, Ernakulam shall consider the application in the light of the above, within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/