IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 23677 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHERIFF,S/O. AHAMMED VELUTHEDATHU HOUSE, EDAPPILLY, KOCHI BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI. ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA 4. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH ERUMATHALA P.O.,ERNAKULAM 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 6. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23677/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 22.5.08 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE KIZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P3:- COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 1.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.72497/2007/REVENUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.3.08 IN WP.C. NO.8618/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of 42.30 ares of land lying in Aluva East Village in Ernakulam District and according to him, the property has been lying without any agricultural operation for more than 20 years. Exhibit.P1 application was filed before the 2nd respondent under the Land Utilization Act. Apparently, Exhibit-P1 application along with the decision of the Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat was forwarded to the 3rd respondent who forwarded the same to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent had reported that the property cannot be used for agricultural purposes. But even thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not taken a decision on the application presumably on the basis of Exhibit-P5 circular issued by the Government which had referred to a proposal for a bill imposing restrictions on conversion of land. It is in these W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 2 circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the RDO to pass an order on Ext.P1 application ignoring the circular dated 17.11.2007. 2. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that report from the Agricultural Officer has been called for by the Tahsildar. 3. It is necessary to take note of the fact that the bill which is referred to in the circular has now become an Act, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, Act 28 of 2008. Detailed provisions are contained in the said Act which contemplates prohibition on conversion of paddy land for any other purpose except in the manner provided in the Act. There is similar prohibition in the case of reclamation of wet lands also. Paddy lands and wet lands are also defined in the Act. Essentially the Act contemplates recommendation by the local area committee which is to be constituted in terms of the provisions of the Act. In other words, competent authority will also have taken into account the recommendation of the local area committee and other materials which are considered W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 3 relevant. 4. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent is to pass orders on the application, in accordance with the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. This will require an enquiry whether lands are paddy lands or wet land. If the lands are paddy land or wet land, the 2nd respondent shall consider the application in accordance with Act 28 of 2008. If the lands are not paddy lands or wet lands, the respondent shall consider the application under the provisions of the Land Utilization Order. If the competent authority finds that the application is to be considered under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then the competent authority is bound to conduct an effective enquiry into the details given by the applicant. The provisions of the Land Utilisation Order, which is a subordinate legislation, under the Essential Commodities Act, is meant to be implemented with seriousness. It should not be dealt with casually. It is not only the status of the land in relation to which permission has been sought for, but also the status of the neighbouring properties that W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 4 is relevant. Possible detrimental effect of conversion of one property forming part of a larger cluster of lands and the attendant ecological factors are to be taken note of by the competent authority. There cannot be a casual approach to an application under the Land Utilisation Order, either for conversion to non agricultural purposes or for permission to use it for purposes other than paddy cultivation. Orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.23677 of 2008 6