Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 438 (KER)

Mohanan v. R. D. O.

2010-06-16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

body2010
Judgment : The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 reply given by the Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to the applications submitted by him for extension of time to effect conversion of paddy land for which permission was issued as per the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order. 2. The petitioner has purchased an extent of 5 cents of land comprised in Survey No.36/1A-1, 36/A2 in Balussery Village in Kozhikode District as per Ext. P1 Sale Deed. The case of the petitioner is that it was remaining as a barren land and therefore, he wanted to construct a building therein. He submitted as application, for reclaiming the said land, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. On the basis of the report of the Village Officer that no paddy cultivation has been carried on in the said land and that there are buildings in the adjoining lands and there are no water channels in the property enabling flow of water to other lands and also that by the reclamation of the land of the petitioner, the adjoining neighbours would not be affected, the application was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P4 on certain conditions. The permission granted was for a period of one month and, accordingly, he started work of reclamation and, the foundation for the building has been laid within the property. He has submitted an application for building permit on 27.06.2007 which was granted by the Panchayat as per Ext.P5. But, he could not complete the reclamation work within the time granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P6 application for extension of time before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 09.07.2007 but, no orders were passed in the matter. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.16747/2008 wherein a direction was issued as per Ext.P8 Judgment dated 05.06.2008 to consider his application. 3. Ext.P11 refers to proceedings dated 19.07.2008 and 20.06.2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It appears that the Government had issued a Circular dated 17.11.2007 to the effect that since the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act has come into force with effect from 19.09.2007 no applications shall be received for permission to convert paddy land or decisions shall not be taken on them. It is only on that basis the petitioner’s application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings dated 19.07.2008. It is only on that basis the petitioner’s application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings dated 19.07.2008. A true copy of the same was produced before me for perusal by the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even prior to the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, by Ext.P4, permission was granted for reclamation of the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and he has executed various works based on it including filling of land. Even under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, there are provisions for allowing conversion or reclamation of paddy land. 5. Here, the properties required to be converted are for constructing a residential house. Even under the Act 28/2008, in a Panchayat, permission can be granted to a maximum extent of 10 cents for filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential houses. There is no total prohibition for allowing conversion as far as paddy lands are concerned. Herein, the Circular issued by the Revenue Principal Secretary stood in the way of the Revenue Divisional Officer considering the grant of extension of time. It is stated at the Bar that this Court has in number of Judgments interfered with similar orders declining permission, on the basis of the said Circular. Therefore, the reasons stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be sustained. There are no provisions in Act 28/2008 whereby the permissions granted by the Kerala Land Utilisation Order has been nullified. Therefore, there is a valid permission obtained by the petitioner under the Land Utilisation Order as per Ext.P4, long prior to the coming into force by the later enactment. The question, therefore, is whether the application for extension can be rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by relying upon the Circular instructions issued as noted above. In the light of the fact that the permission was granted prior to the coming into force of the said Act, there is nothing in law which prohibits the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders granting extension of the conditions provided in Ext.P4. In that view of the matter, Ext.P11 is quashed. 6. In the light of the fact that the permission was granted prior to the coming into force of the said Act, there is nothing in law which prohibits the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders granting extension of the conditions provided in Ext.P4. In that view of the matter, Ext.P11 is quashed. 6. There will be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 seeking for extension of the period for effecting conversion as sanctioned by Ext.P4 without recourse to the provisions of the Act 28/2008. Appropriate decisions will be taken within six weeks, after hearing the petitioner also, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.