Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Klu in Simon K.Francis vs Trichur. Divisional Officer (Land ... on 27 May, 2014Matching Fragments
2. According to the petitioner, 72 cents of land owned by him is surrounded on all sides by reclaimed lands belonging to the third parties. For the last 40 years it is lying as a dry barren land and there is no paddy cultivation since 1955. All the adjacent owners have reclaimed their land and made constructions therein. In such circumstances, the land owned by the petitioner is not fit for agricultural cultivation, especially paddy. There are no water channels nearby or any other agricultural facilities. In such circumstances the petitioner made Ext.P3 application before the District Collector, Thrissur, on 10/10/2005, under Clause 6(1) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (hereinafter referred to as KLU order), seeking permission to convert the land for cultivating coconut, arecanut, plantain, etc.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Revenue), Thrissur, the first respondent herein, has been delegated with the power to entertain applications filed under Clause 6(1) of the KLU Order. On the basis of Ext.P3 application the first respondent called for a report from the Assistant Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thrissur, who submitted Ext.P4 report dated 15/5/2006, pointing out that, the land owned by the petitioner is not part of any `padasekharam'; no natural water channels are seen on the four boundaries of this property; the property is lying uncultivated for the last several years; etc. The Assistant Tahsildar in Ext.P4 has also reported that there is no objection in reclaiming the land owned by the petitioner.
9. As Ext.P7 order is not supported by any reasons, the said order was set aside by the Land Revenue Commissioner in Ext.P9 and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 application afresh and pass a reasoned order. In spite of the specific direction contained in Ext.P9, the first respondent repeated the very same mistake and passed Ext.P11 order rejecting Ext.P3 application by a cryptic order, without stating any valid reasons. Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner is an application under Clause 6(1) of the KLU Order by which a holder of land can approach the competent authority seeking permission to convert or utilise a land which has been under cultivation with any crop for a continues period of three years immediately before the commencement of the KLU Order. Going by the said Clause, the competent authority is authorised to grant written permission for conversion or utilisation of such land for another crop.
10. It is now well settled that the conferment of quasi- judicial power implies that the authority concerned must follow the rules of natural justice and such authority is duty bound to give reasons for making the order which it is empowered to make. An order passed by the competent authority under Clause 6(1) of the KLU Order is appealable before the Board of Revenue, (presently the Commissioner of Land Revenue) and going by Clause 11(3) the appellate authority has to take a decision after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Going by the statutory provisions under the KLU Order the authority exercising power under Clause 6 is conferred with quasi-judicial power to consider whether the request made by a land owner for conversion or utilisation of land for another crop should be granted or not. Such power exercised by the competent authority is subject to appeal to the appellate authority exercising powers under Clause 11 of the KLU Order. In such circumstances the first respondent, who has been delegated with the powers under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, while considering an application for conversion or utlisation of land for another crop, has to pass a reasoned order, specifically meeting the contentions raised by the applicant and stating reasons for rejecting those contentions. Then only the applicant will be in a position to exercise the appellate remedy provided under Clause 11 of the KLU Order. This is for the reason that, only when reasons are stated in an order passed under Clause 6(1) of the KLU Order, the appellate authority in exercising powers under Clause 11, will be in a position to consider whether such reasons are justifiable or not. Moreover, Clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, requires every public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons.