Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Grounds of challenge against Ext.P4 are many folded. It is conceded that the petitioner's brother was served with a show cause notice, as per Ext.P2, intimating the proposed actions, against which he had submitted Ext.P3 objections. In Ext.P3 it is contended that the  property in question is not a paddy field and it contains grown up coconut trees. It is further stated that a retention wall was constructed in the property on the basis of permission granted by the local authority. According to the petitioner, after submission of Ext.P3 objections no order issued under Clause 7 (1) has been served on the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order is issued without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to object the proceedings. Further contention is that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the factual situation and it is issued in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. There is no satisfaction recorded in the impugned order with respect to any violation of provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the proceedings initiated under the KLU Order will not survive in view of enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008.

4. Under clause 6 (2) of the Land Utilisation Order there is a prohibition against conversion or attempt of conversion or utilisation or attempt of utilisation of any land which was cultivated with food crops for a continuous period of three years, for cultivation of any other food crops or for any other purposes. If there is violation of Order 6 (2) the authorized officer is empowered to call upon the person attempting such conversion to cultivate such land with those food crops which were under cultivation for three years referred in Order 6 (2). Such an order under Order 7 (1) need to be preceded by an opportunity of hearing. Sub- clause (2) of Order 7 provides that the notice requiring cultivation issued under sub-clause (1) should be served in the manner provided under clause 4 (2). Clause 4 (2) indicates that the delivery should be by way of tendering to the holder of the land a copy of such notice and if he is not readily traceable or refuses to accept, by affixing a copy of the notice on the outer door of his house and another copy on a conspicuous part of the land to which it relates. In the  case at hand it is evident that a show cause notice was issued prior to passing of an order under Order 7 (1). Even though receipt of Ext.P3 objection is denied, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that a non-authenticated objection was received in the name of Sri. Kannoth Hashim. Learned Government Pleader had produced for my perusal a copy of the order dated 5.8.2008 issued under Clause 7 (1). But the said order does not indicate about receipt of any such objections. Even though the said order says that the land in question was under cultivation with paddy for a continuous period of three years after commencement of the KLU Order, 1967 nothing is indicated to the affect that how such a conclusion was arrived by the 1st respondent. There is no mention about existence of other crops like Coconut trees in the land in question as contended by the petitioner. Nothing is stated about any inspection conducted by the 1st respondent nor about any satisfaction arrived by him. Question regarding service of the order under Clause 7 (1) is under dispute. Under such circumstances, this court is of  the opinion that the impugned order passed under Clause 7 (3) cannot be sustained. The proceedings does not indicate proper exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent and it does not reveal materials upon which the 1st respondent had arrived at any conclusion that there was violation of Order 6 (2) of the KLU Order, 1967.

5. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under the KLU Order is not sustainable in view of enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008. In the decision of this court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram & Ors. [2010 (2) KHC 499 (DB)] it is held that except in case of paddy land and wetland the provisions contained in KLU Order still survives in respect of other food crops. Restrictions imposed under KLU Order in respect of other food crops and conversion of such land will be continued to be governed by the provisions contained in the KLU Order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that  the impugned proceedings is issued on 02.02.2009, after enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 on 12.08.2008. Therefore the proceedings is not sustainable.

8. In view of the findings rendered as above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. However the 1st respondent will be at liberty to proceed afresh after complying with the requisite formalities if he is convinced that there is violation of the  provisions of the KLU Order and that a proceedings under the KLU Order will survive under the given circumstances.

If any such proceedings is initiated, it is left open to the land holder or his authorised representative to take all possible contentions against sustainability of such order, both under law and on facts.