IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7571 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PATTASSERI KUNHEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED, KODINHI AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NANNAMBRA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 7571/2009 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1902/1995. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2800/2006. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION EXT.P6 COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7571 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT An extent of approximately 75 cents was purchased by the petitioner under Ext.P1 document of the year 1995 and Ext.P2 document of year 2006. The property is Nilam in Ext.P1 and Nancha in Ext.P2. There was a building situated in the property covered by Ext.P2 and according to the petitioner the same was demolished. He started construction of a commercial building. 2. According to the petitioner, Building Rules were made applicable to the panchayat only later. Nevertheless, he submitted a building plan. The same was approved. He wanted to make a construction. Therefore, he filed Ext.P4 application for changing the type of the land in the Village Records, essentially under the Land Utilisation Order. The application was returned stating that there is a general government direction prohibiting consideration of such applications. The petitioner refers to Ext.P5 application made to the 3rd W.P.(C).No.7571 of 2009 :: 2 :: respondent to inspect the property and to issue a certificate showing the improvements standing in the property. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to consider Ext.P5 application on merits. 3. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 4. Land Utilisation Order casts a prohibition on conversion of paddy lands or lands wherein food crops are cultivated. Conversion of such lands is permissible in terms of the Land Utilisation Order. The Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Reclamation Act has been enforced, but this has not resulted in the repeal of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order {for short 'the order'}. Reference has been Jayakrishnan v. State of Kerala {2008(4) KHC 514}. In these circumstances, Ext.P4 application is liable to considered under the Order. 5. In the result, 1st respondent shall consider the application in terms of the provisions of the Order and pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If necessary, the 1st W.P.(C).No.7571 of 2009 :: 3 :: respondent shall call for a local inspection to be conducted by an authorised officer. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//