Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The respondent Company has filed counter affidavit, pointing out that the property having a total extent of nearly 28.61 acres was purchased by them as per four different sale deeds of the year 2005, for construction of an Eco-friendly Resort conforming to International Standards. It is stated that the property was originally a 'paddy land', described as "Nilam" in the basic tax register, but no cultivation was being effected for nearly five decades due to various reasons, including high salinity of water and the continuous crop loss. In the said circumstances, the predecessor-in-interest had obtained permission from the District Collector to convert it as an Agricultual-cum-Aquaculture unit in the year 1984, vide Ext. R8(a) proceedings issued under clause 6 (2) of the KLU Order. Pursuant to the said order, the  W.P.(C) Nos. 18742 of 2007, 16783 and 17861 of 2009 property was reclaimed and Coconut saplings were planted. It is stated that almost entire area as on date, except few man made artificial water channels, was having Coconut palms of approximate age of 20-30 years, as seen from Ext. R8(b) photographs. It is added that, because of high salinity, coconut palms are not yielding and that the property is not suitable for any gainful agriculture or aquaculture operation. In the said circumstances, the respondent Company made an application before the District Collector for conversion of the properties. Pursuant to the said application, the Village Officer - Manakunnam, Thahasildar - Kanayannur, Revenue Divisional Officer - Fort Kochi and the authorities of the local authority - Udayamperoor panchayath had inspected the properties and certified that the proposed conversion will not cause any ecological problem and it will not lead to any water logging in the adjacent property, nor will it cause any unemployment. Certificates issued by the said authorities are produced as Exts. R8(c) to R8(f) respectively. The Deputy Collector (LR) had  W.P.(C) Nos. 18742 of 2007, 16783 and 17861 of 2009 also inspected the property, reporting that it was a coconut garden and was protected by fencing. As such, all the authorities have reported that the property had already been reclaimed and converted as coconut plantation. It is without any regard to the above reports, that the District Collector, Ernakulam passed an order on 23.11.2005 rejecting the application for conversion, placing reliance on G.O. (Rt).No. 157/02 dated 05.02.2002, whereby the Government had instructed to disallow applications for conversion of land having more than 5 cents and discouraging conversion for commercial purposes. This made the respondent Company to prefer appeals before the Commissioner for Land Revenue, ultimately leading to Ext. P9 orders which are under challenge in the writ petition.

23. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit in response to the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent companies, also producing some additional documents. Ext. P5 is a copy of the G.O.(Rt) 157/02/AD dated 05/02/2002 issued by the Government of Kerala; as to the modalities of implementation of the KLU order. The stipulations given are;

- that the direction issued to District Collectors vide reference read as first paper above will be withdrawn. This  W.P.(C) Nos. 18742 of 2007, 16783 and 17861 of 2009 would mean that applications for conversion can be considered and disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officers/District Collectors in accordance with the provisions of the KLU Order and related standing instructions. The Land Revenue Commissioner will hear appeals and the Government (in the Agriculture Department) will exercise revisional powers as provided for in the KLU Orders.

- that the revenue machinery at the taluk and village- level should be activated to ensure in future, conversions or attempted conversions without sanction are promptly detected and proceeded against. Conversions should not presented as a 'fait accompli' which have to be inevitably regularised.

- that the Government will examine the suggestions of Collectors/Principal Agricultural Officers for changes to the KLU Order to make the penal provisions more effective and also for levying as on conversion.

36. Mr. Gopinatha Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Companies asserted the position as pleaded in the counter affidavit, additional counter affidavit/objection to the commissioner's report and added that no violation of the coastal zone regulations or any other provisions including Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,2008 ('Paddy Land  W.P.(C) Nos. 18742 of 2007, 16783 and 17861 of 2009 Act' in short) is involved in the instant cases. It is stated that permission to convert the property under Clause 6(2) of the KLU was given to the predecessor-in-title by the concerned District Collector, way back in the year 1984, as there was no paddy cultivation for several years, it being a non-cultivable land and it was accordingly, that the property was converted as coconut plantation and for fish farming. This being the position, the property was never continuing as a paddy land or wet land as defined under Section 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the 'Paddy Land Act'. If the properties are not paddy land or wet land as per the aforesaid Act, the provisions of the said Act are not attracted and the matter has to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the KLU Order, in view of the law declared by this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617). For the very same reason, the law declared by this Court in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai and others vs. State of Kerala and others, ( 2015(1)KLT 651) holding  W.P.(C) Nos. 18742 of 2007, 16783 and 17861 of 2009 that, until final data bank is prepared and published in accordance with law, the draft data bank register is to be followed) is having no application; more so, when the properly was reclaimed after getting orders under Clause (6) of the KLU Order. The learned Counsel also submits that the competent authorities have considered the matter and it was accordingly, that necessary sanction was issued by the Coastal Zone Management Authority to proceed with further steps, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The factual position with regard to permission for conversion granted in 1984 by the District Collector and the subsequent developments including the inspection conducted by the authorities of the Revenue Department at different levels and the Local Authority have been taken note of by the Commissioner for Land Revenue, leading to the order dated 10.03.2006, permitting the conversion sought for by the respondent Companies, which hence are not assailable under any circumstances.