IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 13829 of 2007(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAFEER, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, P.O.MUDIKKAL, PALLIPRAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, P.O.KAKKANAD. GOVERNMENT POLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 13829/2007-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2568/1/07 OF PERUMBAVOOR SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX. EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/04/2007 TO THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13829 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the owner of 39 Ares and 89 sq. meters of land R.S.Nos.37, 36 4/2 in Block No.22 and 23 of Perumbavoor Village covered by Exts.P1 document. According to him, the South-West portion of the property is lying in a low level than that of the remaining property, which is a barren land having no cultivation. He also submits that he would like to construct a residential building in the property. As the property is not cultivable, he wants to improve and develop the property by filling it with suitable soil. Ext.P4 representation has been filed before respondents 4 and 5 under the Land Utilization Act. The respondents have not taken a decision on the representation presumably on the basis of a circular issued by the Government, which had referred to a proposal for a bill imposing restrictions on conversion of land. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with W.P.(C).NO.13829/07 :: 2 :: the development of the petitioner's property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents and for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass an order on Ext.P4 representation ignoring the circular dated 17.11.2007. 2. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that a 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, the competent authority W.P.(C).NO.13829/07 :: 3 :: will also have to take into account the recommendation of the local area committee and other materials which are considered relevant. After hearing counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 representation, 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 4th respondent shall consider the representation in accordance with Act 28 of 2008. If the lands are not paddy lands or wet lands, 4th respondent shall consider the representation under the provisions of the Land Utilization Act. If the competent authority finds that the representation 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 W.P.(C).NO.13829/07 :: 4 :: 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 of lands and the attendant ecological factors are to be taken note of by the competent authority. There cannot be a casual approach to a representation 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. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge