LATHIKA K.P @ LATHIKA KARTHIKEYAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, FOR THRISSUR CORPORATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of three items of property of 0.5281 hectors (1.31 Acres) of dry land located in Re-survey No.42/p and 26/p and 0.5949 hectors of dry land in Re Sy.No.43/2 of Chembukkavu village, Thrissur. It is submitted that the property located in resurvey Nos.42/p and 26/p having an extent of 0.1052 and 0.4229 hectors is not included in the data bank. But property situated in Sy.N.43/2 is included in the data bank. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the said property is included in the Data Bank prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, he is unable to use the property for the purpose of constructing a building. According to the petitioner, since the property was converted long prior to the introduction of the Kerala conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,2008, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank as paddy land. The petitioner has submitted an application as evidenced by Ext.P7 receipt for correction of the entry in the Data Bank seeks appropriate directions in this writ petition for correction of the entry relating to his property located in resurvey Nos.43/2 in the Data Bank. The petitioner preferred Ext.P9 application before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, invoking Clause 6(2) of the said order, seeking permission to use the property for other purposes including construction of building. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order in granting the request made by the petitioner for use of the property for other purposes.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) If the property of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984) . If the provisions of the Act do not apply to the property of the petitioner, he is entitled to make use of the property for construction of building, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182) ].