PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM

Sub : KLU Order 1967- Application filed by Sri.Santhosh Devasia, Mamparambil (H), Pizhaku.P.O, Meenachil- Orders of Hon’ble High Court in WP(C)-20973/13-Compliance reg.

Ref : 1. Judgment in W.P©-20973/13 dated : 06-09-2013       2. Report of the RDO Pala dated : 6-6-2103

       3. Proceedings of   RDO Pala dated : 6-6-2013    4. Letter of the Land Revenue Commissioner No.LRA4-

47081/13/LDis dated : 12-01-2013 5. Circular No.A4-8808/12 of CLR       6. Application of Sri Santosh devasiya Dated : 18-02-2013 7. C.C.C – No. 40/14 filed by Santhosh Devasia

In compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court as per reference 1st cited the Petitioner was called for a hearing on 13-11-2013. The Counsel appear for the petitioner argued that Sri.Santhosh Devasia holds an extent of 36 Ares of Wet Land in Survey No.174/16, 174/14- 1 in Block No.29, in Ramapuram Village Menachil Taluk. It was also contended that though the same is categorized as Nilam in Revenue records. The land reclaimed and not included as Paddy Land in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act 2008. The petitioner demanded correction of the entry in BTR to Purayidam instead of in the place of Nilam. But the petitioner failed to produce any document for permission of such an alteration.

. As per the direction of Hon HC of Kerala ,the matter was considered in light of observations made by division bench in Praveen Vs Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT617], exhibit P5/P6 and relevant portions of Kerala Land Utilisation ( KLU) order 1967. This forum in line of decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court in case supra cited takes the fact that mere description of property in revenue records by itself is not the relevant factor to decide the actual nature of the property and property does not come within the purview of Act 28 of 2008, the matter should be considered under KLU order, so as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the matter is considered under KLU order.

Exhibit P5/P6, which are report from RDO Pala ,it is observed that these documents highlights mainly the following points

1. The land in description is having various trees of age of fifteen to twenty years.

2. The land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and in data bank it is mentioned as the land cultivated with Areca nut , Coco etc.

3. Petitioner demands to change classification of nature of land from paddy land to dry lands.

4. RDO has no power to do so and reports the matter to District Collector for necessary action on the petition.

RDO has heard the case in person and enquired the matter through Tahildar Meenachil and Agriculture Officer Kadanadu. It is worth to mention here that this office also does not have powers to change classification of nature of land as per reference 4 and 5 cited and cannot decide on the demand of petitioner. it is also worth to mention here that data banks were required to be notified by concerned local body as per section 5(4)(i) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, which is not seeing done in this case, so data bank cannot be taken as supreme information in this case to make a final decision and this forum relied more on the observation of exhibit P5/P6.

5. Petitioner in his application requests under section 6(2) of KLU order for permission to convert land for any other purpose and wish to construct a building there and also demands to change the classification of nature of land in revenue records. Petitioner also mentions that property in description has trees of around age of twenty five years. Since this office does not have powers to change classification of nature of land as per circular cited as ref 4 th and 5th , this office cannot consider that for decision . This office has considered the application under section 6(2) of KLU order.

6. The relevant portions of the KLU order were considered with the spirit of the order / the purpose of the order, means as we know KLU order is an order under section 3(2)(1)(a) of essential commodities Act and the spirit or the purpose is to increase area of cultivation of land and thus production of food grain and securing the food security of the Region. KLU does not covers paddy cultivation only but also all other crops which are required for food production. Petitioner says that it is not suitable for paddy cultivation but does not mentions the suitability for any other food crop to be grown, which should be the priority under KLU order and not constructing a building to stop any food production permanently. As such the demand made under section 6 by the petitioner is against the spirit of the KLU Order, in preference to the reason of conversion.

7. Section 6 of KLU order is a section , which makes it mandatory for any holder of the crops to take a written permission from District Collector on terms set by District Collector, if he wish to do anything with the land other than growing a specific food crop for three years continuously .

8. The Section 6 of KLU is “Land cultivated with any food crops not to be cultivated with any other food crop –

(1) No holder of any land , which has been under cultivation with any food crops for a continues period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of this order shall convert or attempt convert or utilize or attempt to utilize such land for the cultivation of any other food crops or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.

(Explanation – for the purpose of this sub clause and sub clause 2 removal of tree-growth whether partial or total, on any land cultivated with cardamom shall deemed to be an attempt to convert or utilize such land for purpose other than cultivation of Cardamom)

(2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilize or attempt to utilize such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.

[Provided that further that the land under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilize or attempted to be utilized for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally]

9. It is seen that the difference between 6(1) and 6(2) is of the period, before or after the commencement of the order in 1967 .When we compare it to information revealed by petitioner and in reports the period of conversion comes as per the age of trees given in the report as about twenty to twenty five years, which may be a period of 1990 to 1995, when KLU order was in force. The very important question arises when such a conversion was done why the written permission of District Collector was not taken by the petitioner? Why the petitioner has not approached District Collector at that time for a mandatory permission? Petitioner or reports does not mention anything in this regard.

The current status of land may not be suitable for the paddy cultivation but it does not validate the conversion done without permission in past and thus petitioner is asking this forum for regularization of an unauthorised conversion of land, and this forum does not have any power to do so and there is no provision for that under KLU vested in this authority.

10. So on the basis of observations and points discussed above, as summarised in Following points:

          1. It is correct that the land is classified as NILAM in Basic Tax Register but in actual it is not suitable for paddy cultivation, but how it converted to such a state is not described in application of petitioner or reports.          2. Current status of nature of land does not validate the unauthorised conversion done in past. This authority does not have powers to validate or regularize it and there is no procedure seen in KLU order for it.

         3. The spirit of KLU lies in essential commodities Act and to enhance food crop cultivation, ensure food security of the region and construction of building cannot be the first priority for the terms of a written permission to be given by collector.

        4. This authority does not have powers to change the nature of the classification of the land as per the directions of the Government.

ORDER

In the above circumstances, so the application of petitioner is hereby rejected under section 6(2) of KLU order and all the orders passed before in t his regard are recalled. If aggrieved by this order petitioner can make necessary appeal as per procedure established. The direction of Honorable High Court is here by complied with.