IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28952 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, VETTEKKODAN HOUSE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28952 of 2009 - L ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th October, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Babu S. Nair, 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, 40 cents in extent, situated in Block No.93, Resurvey No.54/2(b) of Nilambur village, Nilambur Taluk. In the revenue records, the said land is described as 'nilam'. However, according to the petitioner, it is garden land. He submits that with a view to establish a unit for manufacturing cement bricks therein, he moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perintalmanna seeking permission to convert the land and put it to commercial use. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that after Ext.P1 application was filed, neighbouring land owners applied for permits and were granted such permits and that his application has been kept aside and has not been disposed of. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first W.P.(C) No.28952/2009 2 respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 123) held that it is not the description of the land in the revenue records and in the documents of title that is relevant and that the Revenue Divisional Officer will have to consider whether the land in question is paddy land or garden land and take appropriate decision in the matter. It was held that if on enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer is satisfied that the land is garden land and not paddy land, he shall proceed to exercise the power conferred on him under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967 and if, on the other hand, he is satisfied that the land is paddy land, he shall dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, 2008. In the light of the said decision of this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer will necessarily have to conduct such an enquiry in the instant case. A similar view has been taken by another learned single W.P.(C) No.28952/2009 3 Judge of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899). I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and pass orders thereon in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 123) and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899). Needful in the matter shall be done by the first respondent within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him along with copies of the decisions of this Court referred to above. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa