VINCENT VARGHESE Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner holds an item of land within the limits of Pottassery I Village. The land of the petitioner was one which was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) came into force. Nevertheless, an application preferred by the petitioner for grant of building permit was rejected by the local authority. The order passed by the local authority in this connection was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27145 of 2016 before this court and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of Ext.P5 judgment granting to the petitioner, among others, a direction that if the petitioner prefers appropriate application before the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) for permission to use the land for other purposes, he shall be accorded permission under the said statutory provision. Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P5 judgment, before the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order, viz, the first respondent, on 21.06.2017. It is alleged by the petitioner that the permission sought for by the petitioner has not been granted despite the positive direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment. It is stated by the petitioner that when he sought the reason for the delay in the disposal of Ext.P7 application under the Right to Information Act , he is now given Ext.P11 communication from the office of the first respondent. It is stated in Ext.P11 communication that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered in the light of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which a provision for grant of permission to make use of lands similar to the land of the petitioner for other purposes on payment of a fee, has been incorporated in the Act. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that insofar as the petitioner preferred an application seeking permission under the Land Utilization Order to make use of the property for other purposes prior to the commencement of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service in relation to the land of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the first respondent to grant the permission sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P7 application.

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

(3.) As pointed out by the petitioner, this Court has categorically found in Ext.P5 judgment that the petitioner is entitled to the permission sought for by him in Ext.P7 application. In the light of the said finding, the only point arises for consideration is as to whether the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018 could be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. In Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 application for permission under the Land Utilization Order on 21.06.2017 and Act 29 of 2018 was introduced with effect from 30.12.2017. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into the service in respect of the land of the petitioner. In the light of the said judgment, the reason stated in Ext.P11 communication for not considering Ext.P7 application is unsustainable.