SHANAVAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner in possession of the property in Survey No.98/1A -1 having 8.05Ares in Vaikom Village. This is included as a reclaimed land in the Data Bank. Petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee for removing the property. By Ext.P6, this was rejected saying that permission can only be granted for the purpose of residence. It appears in Ext.P6 itself, it is mentioned that this property is remained as fallow for the last 25 years, without any trees. In Ext.P3 draft data bank, it is stated that this was reclaimed land. If this was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, necessarily, the land cannot be treated either as a paddy land or nilam under the Data Bank.

(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 the property is 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."