SHIVADASAN M. K. Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by the above three writ petitions challenge Circular No. 46848 / P1/2016 / Revenue dated 22/12/2016. The essential challenge is against the restriction of conversion of user of lands, which are described as "paddy lands" in the Revenue records, but not included in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for brevity "Paddy land Act"]. The restriction is insofar as permitting conversion, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity "KLU Order") only for construction of a residential house for the owner of the land, that too confined to 10 cents in Panchayat area and 5 cents in Municipality Corporation areas.

(2.) The facts slightly differ. The petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017 were repeatedly before this Court and having obtained orders directing consideration of conversion of user, had been faced with orders of refusal; the last one impugned in the writ petition, for reason of the Circular of 2016. W. P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 is a case in which the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, which was transmitted to the 2nd respondent and left without any consideration. W. P. (C) No. 21438 of 2017 again challenge an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer [for brevity "RDO"] refusing to allow conversion of user despite a judgment of this Court in their favour.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Ravindran, appearing in W. P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017, contended that in the teeth of the declarations made by this Court, in the earlier judgments inter - parties, and the clear factual finding that the land is not included in the data bank, there was no reason for the RDO to have declined the permission sought for under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. The Circular, it is argued, cannot fetter the discretion conferred on the District Collector / RDO under the KLU Order. It is pointed out that the Circular seems to have proceeded on the strength of an earlier order, G. O. (Rt) No. 157/2002 / A. D. dated 05/02/2002, the effect and purpose of which was explained by this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph Vs. Sub Collector, 2015 (3) KHC 727. This Court in the cited decision also considered the provisions under the KLU Order and found that the Order of 05/02/2002 cannot control the provisions of the subordinate legislation. Clause 6 was found to have conferred a discretion on the District Collector / RDO to consider the conversion of user of lands in which cultivation has not been carried on for the last three years.