JOSEPH JPHN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land 12.33 ares in extent, situate in Re-Survey No. 156/5 and yet another parcel of land 8.09 ares in extent, situate in Re-Survey No. 156/6/1 of Ramapuram Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. On the averment that the lands are situate adjacent to Ramapuram-Palai road and have been kept fallow for the past several years and on the further averment that even in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the said parcels of land are not included (Ext.P2 is a copy of the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer in that regard) the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition dated 12.8.2013 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to utilize the said lands for purposes other than paddy cultivation. Shortly thereafter he filed W.P.(C) No. 20570 of 2013 in this Court for an order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala to consider the said representation. The said Writ Petition was filed on the averment that the Revenue Divisional Officer has declined to consider Ext.P3 petition submitted by him on the ground that either the Land Revenue Commissioner or the Government should consider it. W.P.(C) No. 20570 of 2013 was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment delivered on 9.9.2013 after hearing the learned Government Pleader as well, with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala (the second respondent in the said Writ Petition) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation (produced and marked as Ext.P4 in that case), in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2010 2 KerLT 617, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala thereafter considered the said representation and passed Ext.P5 order on 18.12.2013 wherein he observed that as the lands have already been converted, the application for permission has lost its relevance. He also observed that as the lands are no longer suitable for paddy cultivation, the petitioner's request to reclassify the land as purayidam instead of nilam should be forwarded by the District Collector to the Land Revenue Commissioner for appropriate action. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereupon sent Ext.P6 letter dated 18.12.2013 to the District Collector, Kottayam enclosing a copy of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is under challenge in this Writ Petition wherein the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) I heard Sri. Roy Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.K. Soyuz, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. A reading of Ext.P3 representation in the instant case, which was produced and marked as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No. 20570 of 2013, discloses that the request made by the petitioner therein was for permission to utilize his lands for purposes other than paddy cultivation. In that petition the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 9.9.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 20570 of 2013, this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2010 2 KerLT 617. In other words, the direction issued by this Court was to consider the question whether the petitioner's land is paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and in the event of the land being found to be not paddy land or wetland, to consider the request of the petitioner under the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order. A reading of Ext.P5 order indicates that the Revenue Divisional Officer has instead of complying with the direction of this Court, treated the petitioner's application as one to change the classification of the land in the basic tax register and rejected his request on the ground that it can be done only by the Land Revenue Commissioner. In my opinion, in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P4 judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have in my opinion confined himself to the question whether the petitioner's request under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, for permission to put his land to use for purposes other than paddy cultivation should be granted or not. It is evident from a reading of the order passed by the third respondent himself that the land is no longer suitable for paddy cultivation. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to have his application reconsidered in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment.

(3.) I accordingly allow the Writ Petition, set aside Ext.P5 order dated 18.12.2013 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala and direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala to dispose of Ext.P4 representation produced in W.P.(C) No. 20570 of 2013 (Ext.P3 representation in the instant case) afresh, after notice to and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition complete in all aspects before him. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall after orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Needless to say in view of this judgment, further action pursuant to Ext.P6 letter sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector, shall be dropped.