Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P36 order. Ext.P36 is an order passed by the District Collector, according to the petitioner, under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, (for brevity "KLU Order"). The petitioner contends that the report of the Tahsildar, referred to at item no.2 of Ext.P36, specifically indicates that the entire properties were filled up prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for short). In such circumstance, the order could only be under the KLU Order, is the submission made. The petitioner also sought for arguing the matter on merits, but, however, this Court was of the opinion that since an appeal would lie from  the said order; it is only proper that the said remedy be availed.

4. Ext.P9 also has a brief history. The petitioner had obtained an order, Ext.P2 dated 20.08.2003, under the KLU Order for conversion of user of 3.51 hectares of property in Sy. Nos. 95/4, 236/1,2,3,7,8 and 237/8 of the same village. A neighbour had challenged the same  in appeal. The Appellate Authority by Ext.P5 directed the District Collector to ensure that the KLU order was not violated. In a challenge to the said order, this Court found that the order in appeal having not set aside the District Collector's order; what is directed in appeal is only to ensure that the order under KLU is not violated. It is pursuant to that, Ext.P9 was issued by the District Collector.

8. Hence, in the course of the proceedings it was found that the petitioner had exceeded the filling up into 0.86.64 hectares comprised in survey nos.95/3, 95/1, 94/2, 94/4, 94/1, 93/5, 93/4, 93/6 and 93/3. In the operative portion of the order, according to this Court, there are three directions: one, with respect to 1.19.64 hectares, the second with respect to 0.86.64 hectares under the Paddy Land Act and the third direction is  with respect to the filling up of the thodu in survey no.236/4, which is under the KLU Order. The petitioner has now filed an appeal from the order before the Land Revenue Commissioner, as provided under the KLU Order, which takes in that portion of the order concerning the thodu. Ext.P50, though is filed delayed, the petitioner had approached this Court within the time provided under the Statute. The petitioner would also be entitled to file a revision from the Order with respect to 0.86.64 hectares, which is passed under the Paddy Land Act. It cannot but be mentioned that though it is contented that with respect to 1.19.64 hectares the petitioner claims it be filled up prior to 2007, there is no conversion of user obtained under clause 6 of the KLU Order. There can hence be no construction carried on there. The prohibition is a necessary consequence of the rigour of KLU Order,  which mandates a permission for conversion of user under Clause (6) of the KLU Order.

9. In such circumstance, the appeal filed subsequently, produced as Ext.P50 under the KLU Order, shall be considered in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the parties in the writ petition and hearing them. Here it has to be specifically noticed that the petitioner has filed the appeal without conceding to the jurisdiction under the KLU Order. That contention is quite contrary to the contention of the petitioner that the order passed is only under the KLU Order since the lands were filled up prior to 2007. The petitioner also had challenged the order in appeal (Ext.P5) under the KLU Order, which was declared to be an order issued only to ensure the compliance of the order (Ext.P2) passed under the KLU Order. Ext.P6 judgment upheld Ext.P5 order of the appellate authority under the KLU Order which directed that the strict compliance of the order under the KLU will be ensured. The order impugned in the appeal found that the thodu was filled up in contravention of Ext.P2 order. The reservation made, is hence unsustainable.