GEORGE BABY Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 18.75 cents of property comprised in resurvey Nos. 650/13 and 650/14 in Block No. 8 of Peringanadu Village, Adoor Taluk. Petitioner seeks a direction in terms of the judgment in Jalaja Dileep vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2012 3 KerLT 333 to classify the property as dry land in the basic tax register. However, petitioner submits that without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, he may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

(2.) The Collector has power under 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 property is 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:

(3.) In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham, 2012 4 KerLT 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 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.