ANEES M. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner in possession of 16.30 Ares of property comprised in re -survey Nos.71/8, 71/9 in block No.6 of Poruvazhi Village. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register with respect to the property, owned by the petitioner, shown as nilam to 'reclaimed land'.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that they are entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the property has been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the "Act 28 of 2008"). It is further submitted, without prejudice to the petitioner's right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioner is entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation. 3. The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the "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: "If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU." 4. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 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 (supra) 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. 5. In the light of the provisions as above, I am of the view that the petitioner can approach either the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the properties are situated with a request in terms of clause 6 of the KLUO. If the request is so received from the petitioner, the Collector shall consider the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to establish any claim based on Jalaja Dileep's case (supra). No costs. Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/