IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22423 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, 121, MAKERS CHAMBERS 3, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 REPRESENTED ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, GAURAV KHANNA, S/O.R.H.KHANNA. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUNNATHUNADU. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22423 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner purchased property situated in Survey No.335/1 of Kizhakkambalam Village under Ext.P1 document. According to the petitioner, though the land is shown as agricultural land in the revenue records, it is actually lying as a dry land. Petitioner seeks reclamation of the land for non agricultural purposes. It has submitted an application in this regard before the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the same is pending consideration. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner apparently intends to put up buildings in the property and wants a No Objection Certificate in that regard from the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is submitted that the actual status of the land will have to be verified. 3. 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 W.P.(C)No. 22423 OF 2008 -:2:- 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 relevant. 4. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the second respondent is to pass orders on the application referred to in Ext.P3, 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 W.P.(C)No. 22423 OF 2008 -:3:- Utilisation 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 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. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application referred to in Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon, keeping in mind the W.P.(C)No. 22423 OF 2008 -:4:- observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb