IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21268 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MATHEW JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PALM FIBRES & YARNS TRADING COMPANY, THAIKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21268/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of 25 cents 400 sq.links of land in Kumbalam Village. According to the petitioner, the land is now lying as marshy land with industrial waste generated from the industries in Ambalamughal area through the backwaters and the land is therefore, unfit for any agricultural operations or even for prawn cultivation. He therefore submitted, Ext.P1 application before the second respondent the competent authority, under clause 6 of the Land Utilization order for permission to reclaim the land. The said application has been rejected by Ext.P2 order stating that the application cannot be considered in the light of the bill introduced in the Legislature in September, 2007, for protection of paddy land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sreekumar submits that as there is no legislation which has amended the Land Utilization Order or which has brought into force W.P.(C).21268/2008 2 any restrictions as it were, on conversion of erstwhile paddy land or lands, which were designated as agricultural lands, to that extent the only reason cited by the second respondent in Ext.P2 to reject Ext.P1 application is untenable. 3. I find force in the submission. But a competent authority under the Land Utilization Order is bound to consider the application on merits. If there is an application for conversion of any agricultural land, it has to be considered with reference to the ecological factors and also the sustenance of any agricultural properties in the neighbourhood. The competent authority will have to apply its mind and then pass an order. Apparently that has not been done in this case. 4. I heard learned Government Pleader also. The writ petition is taken up for disposal on consent of parties. 5. In the result, Ext.P2 order is quashed. Second W.P.(C).21268/2008 3 respondent shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 application in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made herein and taking note of the provisions of the Land Utilization Order. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs