Judgment emphasizes the limits of Clause 7 directives and remedies under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court has ruled on the legal interpretation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, specifically concerning the permissions for land conversion and cultivation. The judgment delivered by Justice P.M. Manoj in the case of Jossy Chacko v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019, addresses the complexities surrounding land use permissions and clarifies the scope of directives issued under Clause 7 of the KLU Order.
The petitioner, Jossy Chacko, challenged conditions set in an order passed by the third respondent, asserting that a directive under Clause 7, which required cultivation of specific crops, should be treated as permission for conversion of land under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. The petitioner sought to utilize his land for cultivating plantain, vegetables, and tubers, based on a directive issued by the Sub Collector, Alappuzha.
The Court examined the legal framework governing land conversion and utilization in Kerala, focusing on the difference between the permissions granted under Clause 6(2) and directives issued under Clause 7. Justice Manoj emphasized that a directive under Clause 7 cannot be construed as permission under Clause 6(2) for changing the nature of the land. The judgment pointed out that the petitioner's previous attempt to change the tenure of the land in the revenue records through a writ petition was unsuccessful, as the specific permission required under Clause 6(2) was not obtained for the entirety of the property.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted the remedies available under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for unnotified lands. The judgment clarified that the petitioner must approach the statutory authorities under Section 27A to change the tenure of the land, as the provisions of Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules do not negate this procedure unless specific permission under Clause 6(2) has been granted.
The High Court's decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and permissions when seeking to convert land for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes. It underscores the limits of directives issued under Clause 7 of the KLU Order, which are intended to prevent unauthorized conversion and ensure cultivation of food crops, but do not equate to conversion permissions under Clause 6(2).
The judgment has significant implications for landowners and authorities dealing with land use and conversion in Kerala, ensuring clarity in the application of land utilization laws and the process for changing the nature of land in revenue records.
Bottom Line:
Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - A directive issued under Clause 7 of the KLU Order, even if it involves specific cultivation directions, cannot be treated as permission under Clause 6(2) for the conversion of the nature of the land.
Statutory provision(s): Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 Clause 6(2) and Clause 7, Kerala Land Tax Act Section 6, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 Section 27A and Rule 12(17)
Jossy Chacko v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845321
