M/S.Fairlead Logistics & Traders (P) ... vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S.Fairlead Logistics & Traders (P) ... vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2014

The petitioners 1 to 12 are having absolute ownership and possession of total 219.039 ares of land lying together with a common compound wall in Kottuvally Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The 1st petitioner is in absolute owner ship of 59.148 ares of land lying in Sy.Nos.398/1A, 1, 329/1A 396, 398/3. 398/4, 398/3 329 1A, 329/1A 407, 398/1A5-1, 398/5, 397/1A4-1 in Kottuvally Village in Paravur Taluk. The 2nd petitioner is in absolute ownership of 3.541 ares of land in Sy.Nos.398/1A1, 398/1A3 of Kottuvally Village. The 3rd petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession of 9.011 ares of land in Sy.Nos.398/1A1, 398/1A3, 398/1A4, 398/1A5 of Kottuvally Village. The 4th petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession 15.18 ares of land in Sy.Nos.398/4 of Kottuvally Village. The 5th petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession of 7.59 ares of land in Sy.Nos.398/3, 398/4 of Kottuvally Village. Petitioners submit that they are W.P.(C).No.27298 of 2014 2 entitled for declaration in view of the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2014 (1) KLT 161) to classify the above land as dry land. According to the petitioner, this property is shown as 'nilam' in the BTR. It is submitted that the entire property is lying as Purayidam and the same has been reclaimed before the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. However it is submitted that without prejudice to the above claim of the petitioners the petitioners may be permitted to approach the District Collector Ernakulam for reclaiming the land for other purposes in terms of Clause 6 Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that out of the above property, the property situated in 329/ 1A having an extent of 1 Acre 2 cents is a paddy land in draft data bank. It is also submitted that another extent of 18 cents is classified as wet land in draft data bank. Therefore, the petitioners W.P.(C).No.27298 of 2014 3 request in terms of Kerala Land Utilisation Order cannot be considered.

3. It is admitted now the property mentioned except the property mentioned in paragraph 2 has not been classified as nilam or wet land in the draft data bank. Therefore, there is no impediment in law granting permission if so required under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

4. 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."

5. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, W.P.(C).No.27298 of 2014 4 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.

6. In Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706], it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considerin

7. The 1st petitioner submits that the property situated in 329/1A having an extent of 1 Acre 2 cents classified as nilam and 18 cents classified as wet land, the petitioner shall be given liberty to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct the details of the above land in draft data bank within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner files such an application before the Local Level W.P.(C).No.27298 of 2014 5 Monitoring Committee, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall conduct a site inspection and find out whether this property can be treated as nilam or wet land as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008. If this property cannot be treated as 'nilam' or wetland as on the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, necessarily the corresponding changes have to be effected in the draft data bank. However it is made clear that without any decision by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the petitioner shall not reclaim any portion of property situated in Survey No.329/1 1A. It is open for the petitioner to approach the District Collector once the Local the Local Level Monitoring Committee had taken a decision to correct the details in the draft data bank to utilise the land situated in Resurvey No.329/1A under the Kerala Land Utilisation or utilise for other purposes. However, the petitioner has already approached the District Collector, Ernakulam by Exts.P6 and P6(a) for utilising the land for other purposes. The District Collector shall consider the W.P.(C).No.27298 of 2014 6 above application other than the property situated in Resurvey No.329/1A under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The property in Resurvey No.329/1A need be considered only in the event Local Level Monitoring Committee taken a decision to classify the land. Therefore, the District Collector shall advert into the aforementioned judgments and consider the application in terms of Kerala Land Utilisation Order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court