Properties converted before the Act's enactment are exempt from the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, allowing construction permissions under the Land Utilization Order.

JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of a property having an extent of 17.4 Ares, comprised in Block No.20 in Survey No.625/8-1 and 625/8-2 (old Sy.No.305/27A) of Manjapra village in Ernakulam District. The petitioner contends that the said property is a pucca residential land. It is stated that the property is not included in the Data Bank prepared in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). According to the petitioner, the property was converted long prior to the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred an application before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, invoking Clause 6(2) of the said order, seeking permission to use the property for other purposes including construction of building. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order in W.P.(C).No.35173/17 granting the request made by the petitioner for use of the property for other purposes.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3.If the property of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). If the provisions of the Act do not apply to the property of the petitioner, he is entitled to make use of the property for construction of building, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

4.In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order to pass order on the application preferred by the petitioner for permission to use the property for other purposes, in the light W.P.(C).No.35173/17 of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra). The 3rd respondent shall obtain a report from the Convenor of the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committees under the Act to the effect that the property concerned is not shown as paddy land or wetland in terms of the data bank prepared under the Act. It is also directed that the 3rd respondent shall consider the application, after issuing notice to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the report from the Agricultural Officer.

5.Since the restrictions imposed by the Government in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order is granted, he shall be issued building permit by the local authority concerned, if he is otherwise entitled for the same.

W.P.(C).No.35173/17 Likewise, it is also directed that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order is granted, the petitioner will also be entitled to apply to the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if application is preferred by the petitioner in this connection, the same shall be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month thereafter.