Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-------------------------

The petitioner has approached the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU order). This was rejected by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P13 stating that the petitioners have unauthorisedly filled up the paddy land and have started construction of a building without obtaining necessary orders.

2. KLU order is in a subordinate legislation issued invoking power under Essential Commodities Act. The Essential Commodities Act is an enactment to ensure free supply and distribution of certain essential commodities. The KLU order issued in the year 1967 in the wake of scarcity of food and to subserve the larger interest of the community. It does not fetter any right of the person in respect of the land to enjoy in accordance with law. The Collector has power in terms of Clause 7 of KLU order to command the holder of the land to utilise the land for the cultivation of food crops referred in the KLU Order, if it is satisfied that the holder of the land is not utilising the land for the cultivation of the food crops.

3. In this case, the Collector has not exercised any power under Clause 7 of the KLU order. This would indicate that the authorities have a view that there is no necessity to invoke Essential Commodities Act or the KLU Order to subserve the interest of the community by ensuring the production of food crops. Therefore, there is no impediment in granting permission to the holder of the land to construct an apartment complex in the land. The Collector has refused permission to construct the building noting that the petitioner has already constructed the pillar in the land without obtaining necessary orders in terms of the KLU order. This cannot be a reason to reject the application of the petitioner. As held in several judgments that conversion of land without obtaining orders from the Collector is not a ground to deny the application in terms of Clause 6 of KLU order. In Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706], it was held that reclamation or conversion of the land is not bar in considering the application under Clause 6 of KLU order.

4. Since there is no other reason stated in the impugned order to refuse the permission, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's application in terms of Clause 6 of the KLU ought to have been allowed by the Collector. Accordingly impugned orders are set aside. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Sub Collector, Trichur to grant permission to the petitioners to utilise the land for the construction of apartments. However, the Sub Collector is free to impose any condition to protect the surrounding land and also for taking any measures that surrounding land are not affected by the construction being undertaken. Needful shall be done by the Sub Collector within one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.