IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26858 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KHALEEL REHMAN, S/O. SARVUDEEN SAHIB, AGED 54 YEARS, KALAPETTY HOUSE, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26858 of 2009 - B ---------------------------------------- Dated 24th September, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land, 66 cents in extent, situated in Re-survey No.281/5 (Old Survey No.119/E/2) of Kannadi - II village in Palakkad Taluk. The petitioner claims that the said parcel of land is dry land and not wet land and that he purchased the said lands with the intention to construct a house. The petitioner submits that in view of the description of the land in Ext.P1 sale deed as 'Nilam', he had submitted the original of Ext.P2 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad seeking exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in order to put up a residential house therein. The petitioner submits that though Ext. P2 application was submitted more than five months back, in view of a doubt expressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as to whether the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 will apply to the land in question, the W.P.(C) No.26858/2009 2 said application has not been disposed of. The petitioner contends relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Jayakumar v. District Collector and others (2008 (4) KHC 514) that the mere fact that the land is classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records is not conclusive and that what is important is the nature of the land. The petitioner contends that irrespective of the description of the land as wet land in the documents of title and in the revenue records, the respondent, a statutory authority, is bound to ascertain whether the land is wet land or garden land after due enquiry. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad to consider Ext.P2 application and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. It is evident from the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. District Collector and others (supra) that the description of the land as wet land in the revenue records and in the documents of title is not conclusive and that the authority constituted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 has to ascertain the actual condition of the land and arrive at a conclusion having regard to the nature and use to which it is put. In such circumstances, the Revenue W.P.(C) No.26858/2009 3 Divisional Officer, Palakkad cannot delay passing of orders on Ext.P2. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 application in the light of the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. District Collector and others (supra). Final orders on Ext.P2 shall be passed within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. District Collector and others (supra). The District Collector shall, after orders are passed as directed above, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa