KAVUMPURATH BHANUMATHI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner says that she is in possession of an extent of 109 cents of land comprised of in Sy.No.21/6 of the Perinthalmanna Village. She has produced Ext.P1, which is a copy of the possession certificate, in evidence of this assertion.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the land in question had been converted as a garden land years before and she says that, out of it, 40 cents was converted with permission. She says that all the neighbouring lands are now filled up and have been used for commercial purposes and she points out that in front of her property in question is the National Highway No.213. In effect, the petitioner says that her property is now incapable of being put to cultivation specially because out of it, 40 cents was converted legally. She says that even the Municipality has thought it fit that the property cannot be put to cultivation and that they have recommended for the construction of a Wedding Hall (Kalyanamandapam) thereon, as is clear from Ext.P2 minutes, dated 28.06.2004, of the Standing Committee of the Municipality.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon submits that she has made an application under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short 'KLU Order') for permission to convert the balance 60 cents of land, since the other 40 cents was converted earlier under valid sanction, before the District Collector, Malappuram. The petitioner asserts that this application is pending and that even so, the RDO has issued a notice under Section 7(1) of the KLU Order directing her to put the property to cultivation and that when she was unable to do so, she was issued with a subsequent notice, under clause 7(3) of the KLU Order, where under the District Collector ordered sale, by public auction, of the right of cultivation in her land. These orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Land Revenue Commissioner who remanded the matter, through Ext.P3 order, to the District Collector for fresh orders. The petitioner says that the District Collector, however, thereafter has issued Ext.P6 order confirming his earlier order, which is now impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.