ABDUL REHMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property comprised in Re.Survey No.323/4 in Muthuvalloor Village, Malappuram District challenges the order of the District Collector (Ext.P5) refusing to grant permission under Clause 6 (2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short 'KLU'). The petitioner states that he is a cancer patient and he has undergone a major surgery and radiation in connection with his treatment. He submits that there is no vehicular access to his property and the same is causing difficulties in case of an emergency to get medical help. Though the petitioner admits that his property is described as 'nilam' in the revenue records, the said land is a reclaimed land and has areacanut and coconut trees and all the trees are of more than 40 years old. A certificate, Ext.P3 has also been issued by the Village Officer stating that property above mentioned is not included in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules (for short 'the Act'). It is his further case that the property is reclaimed long prior to the coming into force of the said Act, and thus the Act has no application. When the petitioner attempted to fill red earth in the property for constructing a 3 meter road, there were objections, which led to the filing of WP(C)No.26172 of 2013, wherein by Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to the first respondent to ascertain whether the property is actually a 'paddy land' or 'wetland' as defined under the Act, and also if the property is not remaining as a 'paddy land' or 'wetland' as on the date of commencement of the said Act, it was directed to be considered in terms of Clause 6 of the KLU Order so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the property for any other purpose other than agricultural purpose. The District Collector, after hearing the parties and causing a local inspection, found that the petitioner's contention that there is no vehicular access is wrong as according to him there were two alternate access to the petitioner's property. He also held that the property is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records and further found that the filling of the land in question would adversely affect the cultivation in the neighbouring paddy land.

(2.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit where they maintain the stand as in the impugned order, Ext.P5 and further adding that if the petitioner's application was allowed it will adversely affect the farming in the neighbouring paddy fields and that there are two alternate motorable roads leading to the property of the petitioner and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.