Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

background of the petitioners having applied under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity "KLU Order") also directed that the authority shall consider first whether the land is a paddy land or wet land as defined under the Paddy Land Act and on finding so, to consider the application under that Act and otherwise, under the KLU Order.

2. In compliance of Exhibit P6 series of judgments, Exhibit P7 series of orders were passed, wherein it was found that the land is covered under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and permission, for development activities was granted, according sanction for conversion of land on condition of adequate drainage facilities being provided. The said order was challenged in appeal before the 2nd respondent,by respondents 5 and 6 herein, by way of a single appeal and the same was allowed, setting aside Exhibit P7 series of orders by Exhibit P10. The further revision filed by the petitioners herein jointly, was rejected, confirming the appellate order, by Exhibit P21. After Exhibit P7 order was passed, the appeal initiated by respondents 5 and 6 and the proceedings pursuant thereto were often subject matter of writ petitions before WP(C).12793/2013 - 3 -

be used, as defined under the Paddy Land Act.

6. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] accepted the declaration of law made by the learned Judges in the afore-cited decisions. Dilating upon the legal position, it was held that with respect to paddy land and wet land, the KLU Order has no application after the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act. But, however, it was held that a dispute could be raised as to whether a particular land is a paddy land or wetland and on such event, an application under the KLU Order cannot be summarily rejected; but a finding has to be entered as to the nature of the land. Proceedings under the KLU Order will be competent if the finding of the authority is that, it is not a land covered under the Paddy Land Act. On the contrary finding, the applicants would be entitled to proceed under the Paddy Land Act before the appropriate authority constituted under that Act. The decision as to the nature of the land was found to be one based on materials on record, including the revenue records, the latter of which was held to be not conclusive and an applicant was found to be entitled to prove WP(C).12793/2013 - 6 -

17. Then the RDO went on to examine the provisions of KLU Order, by which it was noticed that there was prohibition in conversion or utilisation of an agricultural land only with respect to a land in which there was cultivation of any food crop for a WP(C).12793/2013 - 18 -

continuous period of three years. The said prohibition was applicable on the date of commencement of the KLU Order as per sub-section (1) of Section 6; and at any time subsequent to the KLU Order, by sub-section (2) of Section 6. The RDO, hence, found that for conversion of the said land, it requires the permission of the District Collector or the RDO concerned. Having found that the paddy land is not suitable for cultivation for reason of it not being cultivated in the previous years, the RDO, based on the provisions of the KLU Order, held that for conversion of such land; permission under the KLU Order alone is necessary. (i) Physical inspection of the properties were carried out, as has been revealed in Exhibit P7 and (ii) on an examination of the Revenue records, together with the (iii) report of the Principal Agricultural Officer and also the (iv) decision of the Grama Panchayat which had granted a development permit, the RDO proceeded to grant permission for conversion, under the KLU Order. Exhibit P7 series is based on these four [(i) to (iv)] factors.

The emphasis, hence, is on the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation. The first limb of the definition is not applicable, since both sides admitted that there is no paddy cultivation for the last 3 or 4 years in the said land. That alone would not bring it under the KLU Order, since on the Paddy Land Act coming into force, "paddy lands" as defined under that Act are taken out of the purview of the KLU Order. The second limb of the definition includes lands which are suitable for cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Under the KLU Order, what is significant is the factum of WP(C).12793/2013 - 25 -