IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27385 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. ASHRAF, 46 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN, KALOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL HAKEEN CHEMBU KADAVIL, EDAPPALLY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 5. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 27393/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NOs.27385,27393,27416,27420 &28157 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience I will refer to the facts in WPC.No.27385/2008. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of certain properties having an extent of 16.54 ares lying in Aluva East Village and according to them, the property has been lying without any agricultural operation for more than 20 years. Ext.P1 application was filed before the second respondent under the Land Utilization Act. Apparently, Ext.P1 application along with the decision of the Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat were forwarded to the 3rd respondent who forwarded the same to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, 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 Ext.P5 WPC.27385 /2008 & conn. cases. 2 circular which had referred to a proposal for a bill imposing restrictions on conversion of land. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court seeking a direction to the RDO to pass an order on Ext.P1 application ignoring Ext.P5 circular. 3. Similar issues are raised in other writ petitions also. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in one of the cases report from the Agricultural Officer has been received and in other cases report from the Agricultural Officer has been called for by the Tahsildar. 4. It is necessary to take note of the fact that the bill which is referred to in Ext.P5 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 WPC.27385 /2008 & conn. cases. 3 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 relevant. 5. After hearing counsel on both sides, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent to pass orders on the applications, 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 second respondent shall consider the application in accordance with Act 28 of 2008. If the lands are not paddy lands or wet lands, the second respondent shall consider the application under the provisions of the Land Utilization Act. 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 WPC.27385 /2008 & conn. cases. 4 to which permission has been sought for, but also the status of the neighbouring properties that is relevant. Possible detrimental effect of conversion of one property forming part of a larger cluster 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. 6. The discussion made in relation to WPC.No.27385/2008 shall apply in the case of other writ petitions also. Accordingly, the second respondent shall first consider whether the land involved in Ext.P1 is paddy land or wet land and if it is found that it is paddy land, then the plea for conversion shall be dealt with in accordance with Act 28 of 2008. If it is found that it is not paddy land or wet land, the application shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Land Utilization Act. Orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ WPC.27385 /2008 & conn. cases. 5