Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The writ petition is preferred by the owner of an extent of 105.81 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1, along with another property having an extent of 50 Ares with a building in RS No. 157/2 in Block No. 19 of Kunnumma Village in Kuttanadu Taluk. Altogether, the contiguous holdings amount to 155.81 Ares (385 Cents).

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is primarily against certain conditions prescribed in Ext. P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is entitled to utilise 105.81 Ares (comprised in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 in Block No. 19) for the cultivation of plantain, vegetables, and tubers. This entitlement is claimed on the strength of the direction given by the 3rd respondent, asserting that it constitutes a valid 2026:KER:6221 permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short 'KLU Order').

3. No activities or construction other than agriculture shall be done on this property as per the Kerala Land Utilisation (KLU) Order. The Tahsildar must ensure that no construction works are executed on the property.

It was further directed that, as the land is agricultural, the Secretary (Kavalam Grama Panchayat) shall not grant any permission for construction in the property comprised in Survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, and 160/1, 2 of Kunnumma Village.

6. However, treating the order issued under Clause 7 as a declaration that the land was not paddy land and not suitable for paddy cultivation, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 34153 of 2014 for changing the tenure of the land. This writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 22.12.2015, which directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector with all necessary details for changing the nature of land in the revenue records. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the District Collector by submitting an application on 12.02.2016. This application was disposed of by proceedings dated 13.07.2016, with the finding that no change was required in the 2026:KER:6221 revenue records. The Collector instead directed the implementation of the Sub Collector's order.

11. The Ext. P5 order dated 07.01.2015 was issued under Clause 7 of the KLU Order to prevent the unauthorised conversion of land. This was necessitated because, as per Ext. P3 dated 17.12.2013, the petitioner had been granted permission under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order for converting a specific strip of land (6 meters in width and 125 meters in length) in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 (in Block No. 19), solely for use as a road to his residential property located in RS No. 157/2. The correct remedy available for the petitioner, as permitted by this Court under the Ext.P8 judgment, is to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Section 27A of the amended provisions of the Paddy and Wetland Act. Unless and until such an application is moved and 2026:KER:6221 allowed, the Ext. P12 application under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act cannot be considered.

16. In an attempt to circumvent the earlier decision, the petitioner now contends that the observations made by the Sub Collector in Ext. P5 and Ext. P7 are sufficient ground to treat the order as having been passed under Clause 6(2) for the entire extent of property in R.S. Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 in Block No. 19. The petitioner then argues that the next step should be taken under Rule 17 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. This contention is also inapplicable here, as Ext. P5 order cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2). It appears that, as a measure to protect the objective of the KLU Order, certain powers are vested with the Collector to direct the cultivation of land with the food crops that were previously being cultivated. The initial observation of the Sub Collector in Ext. P5 was that the nature of the land previously contained water channels and water bodies. However, on the pretext of Ext. P3 order (which allowed the conversion of a small extent of land for constructing a road to his residential property), the petitioner unauthorizedly converted a large 2026:KER:6221 extent of land. Instead of directing the restoration of the land, the Sub Collector directed the utilization of the said land for other cultivation. The petitioner misinterpreted this as permission under the KLU Order, which he believes entitles him to convert the land in the revenue records.