Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Renji K Paul vs Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo) on 14 February, 2019
The 3rd respondent District Collector has passed the
impugned Ext.P7 order dated 5.2.2015 rejecting the plea of the petitioner
as per Ext.P5 on the ground that it is not right and proper to give
permission under Rule 6(2) for use of the subject property for
commercial purpose. Thereupon the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 appeal
before the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue which has
been rejected as per Ext.P9 order. Against Ext.P9 order, the petitioner
has preferred Ext.P10 revision petition before the 1st respondent State
Government. It has been now established by a series of rulings of this
W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 4
Court as in Renji K. Paul and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2019 (2) KLT 262], Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (3)
KLT 262], Salim v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) Klt 604 (DB)], Tahsildar,
Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George [2020 (1) KHC
865]etc., that in a case where the subject property has been converted as
garden land/purayidom prior to coming into force of the 2008 Act and
where Rule 6(2) application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,
1967 has been submitted prior to 30.12.2017 (prior to coming into force
of 2018 amendments to the 2008 Act), then the case of the applicant
therein/property holder is to be considered strictly as per the provisions
contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and in
which case none of the adverse or detrimental conditions flowing out
from the amended provisions of the 2008 Act or the amended
provisions of the Rules framed thereunder can be invoked or pressed into
service as against the property holder.
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961
A.R.Sivadasan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 February, 2008
3. It is beyond any factual controversy, the petitioner has filed
Ext.P5 application immediately after Ext.P1 judgment dated 18.9.2015.
Ext.P5 application has been recommended by the 4 th
respondent as can be seen from Ext.P6 report dated 18.1.2016. The 3 rd
respondent District Collector has rejected Ext.P5 petition as per Ext.P7
order solely on the ground that such permission under Rule 6(2) of the
KLU Order cannot be granted for use of the subject property for
W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 5
commercial purpose. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the date of
Ext.P7 proceedings is shown as 5.2.2015, it could only be a mistake as
even Ext.P6 report is seen filed on 18.1.2016 and so it appears that the
correct date of Ext.P7 may be 5.2.2016. It is by now well settled by a
series of rulings of this Court as in Sivadasan v. Revenue Divisional
Officer [2017 (3) KLT 822] and Shahul Hameed v. Principal
Secretary, Local Self Government [2018 (1) KLT 1008 (DB)] that the
plea for permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order cannot be rejected
on the ground that the property is intended to be used for commercial
purpose and that permission could be granted for use of the subject
property for any non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the impugned
rejection as per Ext.P7 order is vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness
and it is only be rescinded. Accordingly, Ext.P7 order will stand set aside.
Ordinarily an application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order is to be
considered at the first instance by the 4th respondent RDO who has also
notified to exercise all the original powers of the Collector. In view of the
setting aside of the impugned Ext.P7 order, it is ordered that the
impugned Ext.P9 order will also stand set aside. In the nature of the
orders proposed to be passed in this case, it is ordered that further
consideration of Ext.P10 revision petition is unnecessary. It is by now
well settled where the application under Rule 6(2)of the KLU Order,1967
has been filed by the property owner before 30.12.2017 (date of coming
W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 6
into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act), then the said
application is to be considered strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU
Order and in such a case the rigorous provisions contained in the
amended provisions of the Act introducing Section 27A thereof, then the
said application is to be considered strictly in terms of the provisions of
Rule 6(2)of the KLU Order and in such a case the rigorous provisions
contained in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act introducing Section
27A thereof, cannot be pressed into service against the property owner
concerned. In this case, it is beyond any dispute that Ext.P7 application
has been filed much prior to 30.12.2017 as even the impugned Ext.P7
rejection order was passed on 5.2.2016. Hence, it is ordered in the
interest of justice that Ext.P5 application will stand remitted to the 4 th
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration and decision
afresh. Since Ext.P5 earlier filed before the 3 rd respondent District
Collector to avoid any further delay, it is ordered that copy of Ext.P5
application as produced in the W.P.(C) shall be treated by the 4 th
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer as the application filed under Rule
6(2) before him. The learned Government Pleader will ensure that an
attested copy of Ext.P5 application as produced in this Writ Petition
along with certified copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the 4 th
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and thereupon the 4 th respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer will treat the said material as Ext.P5
W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 7
application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967. The 4 th
respondent will then take up the matter in Ext.P5 for consideration and
after following requisite procedure and after affording reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner , will render a considered
decision on the plea made in Ext.P5 for conversion of the subject property
as garden land or purayidom and for its use for any non-agricultural
purposes, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
1