JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.R Raman, J.:— W.A 2754/2009 arises out of the judgment in W.P(C) 23071/2009. The appellant, who was the petitioner, applied for permission to convert a piece of wet land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The application was made in 2007. Reminders were also sent subsequently and the matter was pending consideration when a new enactment namely, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed and came into force, with effect from 12.8.2008 Subsequently, the application submitted by the appellant was rejected holding that since the Act has already come into force, he has to seek permission under the said Act. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. Learned Single Judge, after referring to the relevant provisions contained in the Conservation Act more particularly S. 3(1) of the said Act, which prohibits conversion or reclamation of the paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of that Act, on and from the date of commencement of that Act, held that no order could be passed in an application made under the Kerala Land Utilization Act on and after coming into force of the Act and dismissed the Writ Petition. Impugning the said judgment, the Writ Appeal has been preferred.
2. W.P(C). 13535 of 2009 and W.P(C) 30788 of 2009 came up before us based on areference order made by the learned Single Judge. When W.P(C) 30788 of 2009 came up for consideration, the learned Judge thought that in view of the decision of this Court in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 123), Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) and Hajee Abubacker v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, Palakkad (2009 (4) KLT 49) there is some conflict between the above decisions on the issue as to whether after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 an application filed by the petitioner under the Ke;rala Land Utilization Order 1967 for permission to put the land described in the title deed as ‘Nilam’ to use for constructing a residential building is maintainable. W.P(C) 13535/2009 which came up for consideration subsequently was also referred to the Division Bench in view of the earlier reference made as above. We will refer to the detailed facts in each of these cases at appropriate place after answering the legal issue with reference to the scope and application of the provisions in the Land Utilization Order, after the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force.
3. The Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 was issued by the Government of Kerala, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-s. (1) and clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955), read with the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture No. S.R.O 3950 dated 9th December, 1957 and with the prior approval of the Central Government. The term “Food Crops” defined under C1.2(b) is as follows:
“Food Crops” includes paddy, fish, sugarcane, vegetables, tapioca, yam, tea, coffee, cardamom, pepper, groundnut, cocoa and banana plantain.”
4. Clause 6 of the L.U.O 1967 which is relevant for our purpose is extracted hereunder:
6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop:—
(1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise 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.
(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 be deemed to be an attempt to convert or utilise such land for a 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 utilise or attempt to utilise 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 except in the case of lands under cardamom cultivation, no permission under sub-clause (1) of sub-clause (2) shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised is paddy cultivation or fish culture:
Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally.)
5. Coming to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as Act 28 of 2008), it is an Act to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. As per the Preamble, the Government came to notice that indiscriminate and uncontrolled reclamation and massive conversion of paddy land and wetland are taking place in the State and since there is no existing law to restrict effectively the conversion or reclamation of paddy land, Government was satisfied that it is expedient in public interest, to provide for the conservation of paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof in order to promote agricultural growth, to ensure food security and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. As per S. 1 of the said Act, it came into force at once ie. from 12.8.2008 S. 2 is a definition clause. S. 2(xii) defines ‘paddy land’ as follows:
“Paddy land” means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals.”
‘Wetland’ is defined under S. 2(xviii) as follows:
“wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers;”
6. Section 3 prohibits conversion or reclamation of paddy land. For easy reference, we will extract S. 3 also, which is as follows:
“3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land. —
(1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2). Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation.”
7. Section 4 provides for payment of incentives for paddy cultivation. S. 5 provides for constitution of Local Level Monitoring Committees for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Sub-s. (2) of S. 5 provides the composition of the Committee. Sub-s. (3) deals with the powers of the Committee including the power to inspect the paddy land situated within its jurisdiction and to monitor whether the provisions of the Act are being complied with and to report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the violations, if any, of the provisions of the Act and to examine violation of the provisions of the Act and to intervene in the issue to prevent such violation. Sub-s. (4) of S. 5 provides for various functions to be performed by the Committee. The next provision which is relevant in the context is S. 9 which provides for constitution of District Level Authorized Committee as per which the District Collector is to constitute, in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision. As per the proviso thereunder, the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding ten cents in a Panchayat and five cents in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be. Sub-s. (6) of S. 9 provides for an appeal to an aggrieved person against the decision of a District Level Authorised Committee before the Collector within thirty days from the receipt of the decision, in such manner as prescribed. Sub-s. (8) of S. 9 forbids an application to be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land, that the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for such purpose in that District, that the building to be constructed is for his own purpose and that such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. S. 10 empowers the Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act, if such conversion or reclamation is essential for any public purpose. As per sub-s. (2) of S. 10, no such exemption shall be granted by the Government unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended the conversion or reclamation and the Government are satisfied on the basis of the report submitted by the State Level Committee, that no alternate land is available and such conversion or reclamation shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy in the adjoining paddy land and also the ecological conditions in that area. S. 11 prohibits reclamation of wet land. The other provisions in the Act as such are not relevant in the context of the present case.
8. On a reading of the above provisions, it can be seen that the application of the Act is confined to paddy land and wet land alone and as per S. 3, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the owner or occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for conversion or reclamation of such paddy land, after coming into force of the Act. But there is a total prohibition of reclamation of such wet land and removal of sand therefrom after the commencement of the Act except the removal of slurry and mud to maintain the ecological condition of wetland. There is also a provision for making the application for permission for reclamation of the paddy land for construction of residential building to the owner of the paddy land and for taking a suitable decision as provided for under S. 9 of the Act and such application has to be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, if such reclamation does not adversely affect the ecological condition and cultivation in the adjoining paddy land and the owner of the paddy land is not having suitable land in the district and construction is proposed for his own purpose and such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. Besides, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 3, Government has also freedom to grant exemption subject to the condition imposed under sub-s. (2) of S. 10 of the Act.
9. In the light of the above provision, more particularly Ss. Sand 11 thereof, no conversion or reclamation of paddy land is permissible except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and S. 11 totally prohibits conversion or reclamation of wet land and removal of land therefrom and there is a total prohibition of reclamation of wet land on and from the date of commencement of the Act.
10. Thus, in respect of paddy land and wet land as defined under the Act, even if an application was made before appropriate authority under the Land Utilization Order and in so far as no permission is granted in terms of the provisions contained therein, such conversion or reclamation of the paddy land is to be governed by the provisions contained in Act 28/2008 since the effect of the prohibition contained in Ss. 3 and 11 is against reclamation or conversion of the paddy land and wet land. Once the Act has come into force, the mere fact that there is any pending application under the Land Utilization Order is of no consequence. Thus, though the Act is prospective in its operation, in the light of the above provision, one cannot reclaim or convert a paddy field without permission being obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
11. We may, however, notice that except in the case of paddy land and wet land, the provisions contained in the Land Utilization Order still survives in respect of the other food crops. As we have noticed, as per the definition “food crops” under the Land Utilization Order, encompasses not only paddy crops but also fish, sugarcane, vegetable, tapioca, yam, tea, coffee, cardamom, pepper, groundnut, cocoa, banana plantain etc. Since Act 28/2008 confines its application to paddy land and wet land, restriction imposed under the Land Utilization Order under Cl. (6) thereof in respect of other food crop will have continued operation and such conversion or attempt of conversion or utilize or attempt to utilize such land other than paddy land or wet land will continued to be governed by the provisions contained in the Land Utilization Order and such application for conversion has to be dealt with by the District Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the case of paddy land, however, such application for permission has to be moved before appropriate authority and to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore, we agree with the view expressed in the decision reported in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 123).
12. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) the question posed for consideration was as to whether the mere description of land as ‘nilam’ attracts the provisions of Act 28/2008. It was held therein that mere description of an item of property as ‘nilam’ or paddy field in the revenue record is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those for which the paddy field or wet land can be used. This, according to the learned Judge, is because of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 deals with the conversion of lands, which are wet land or paddy fields, on the basis of the factual situation and not depending on the description of the property in the revenue records. It was held that the definition of the term ‘paddy field’ and ‘wet land’ in the said Act is sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in the title document. Whereas in Hajee Abubacker v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, Palakkad (2009 (4) KLT 49) a learned Judge of this Court held that after coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, no order can be passed on an application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
13. We concur with the above decision as regards the principle as stated above. In Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 123) it was held that it is for the competent authority to enquire as to whether it is a paddy land or wet land and if on enquiry, it is found that the land is not paddy land or wet land, the authority is competent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to deal with the same. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899), it was observed that “the definition of the term paddy field” and ‘wet land’ in the Act is sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land depending on its description in the title document”. We do not find that there is any conflict as such in these decisions.
14. It is true that if it is a paddy land or wet land, the provisions contained in the Land Utilization Order has no application after the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, namely, with effect from 12.8.2008 But still it is open to dispute as to whether, a particular land is a paddy land or wet land or whether it is a land cultivated with other food crops. Therefore, if an application is made under the Land Utilization Order on the plea that the land in question is not a paddy land or wet land, but cultivated with other food crops, necessarily before non suiting the applicant, a finding has to be entered as to whether the application is sustainable under the Land Utilization Order and it will be depending upon that finding as to whether the land in question in respect of which an application has been made for permission is a land cultivated with food crops other than paddy, or it is a wet land. If the authority before whom the application made is satisfied on due enquiry and based on materials on record that the land is one cultivated with food crops other than paddy or a wet land, such application has to be processed in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Utilization Order. On the other hand, if the authority finds that it is a paddy land or wet land, the application has to be rejected whereupon it is for the party aggrieved to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Or, on the other hand, if he accepts the finding, then it is still open to him to submit an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 for necessary permission before appropriate authority in which event, the said application will be processed in terms of the provisions contained therein. The question as to whether it is a paddy land or wet land is to be adjudged based on materials on record including the revenue record, if any. It is true that mere description of the property on the revenue record by itself may not be conclusive and may not estopp a party from producing materials to show otherwise. This being an assessment of the factual position regarding the nature of the land, necessarily, it involves adjudication by the concerned authority on the given set of facts and materials produced and one or other factor by itself may not be conclusive; but a decision has to be rendered taking into consideration the materials available on record. Therefore, if an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wet land. What ousts the jurisdiction of the authority under the Land Utilization Order is based on the finding as to whether it is a paddy land or wet land. If it is a paddy land or wet land, necessarily, it stands outside the jurisdiction of that authority in processing the application further or in granting any permission sought for. On the other hand, if it is held that it is not a paddy land or wet land, but cultivated with crops other than paddy, necessarily, the authority under the Land Utilization Order will have to process the application in terms of the provisions contained therein and dispose of the same.
15. The legal position is thus clarified as above. Now we shall come to the facts in respect of the individual cases. In W.A 2754/2009, the appellant admits in Para 2 of the statement of facts that he is a holder of an extent of 35 cents of land, lying adjoining in Survey No. 185/9 of Coyalmannam A msom, Alathur Taluk, by virtue of two registered assignment deeds. In Para 4 of the statement of facts, it is admitted that since a larger portion of the land is being acquired for public purpose, namely, for widening the National Highway, it became necessary for the appellant to obtain permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order to convert a portion of the double crop wet land into a paramba, so as to put up a small building and also to rehabilitate themselves to carry out the small business that is being conducted in the premises. On the above admitted fact that it is a double crop wet land which is sought to be converted into a paramba for putting up a small building, it requires no further adjudication to find the nature of the land to hold that it is a double crop wet land. Therefore, the application for such conversion/reclamation has to be made before the competent authority as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore, the order impugned in the Writ Petition, Ext. P 10, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that in view of the new enactment, an application cannot be considered under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and reserving his right to approach the appropriate authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 is perfectly valid and not liable to be interfered with. The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances, dismissed the Writ Petition, which do not call for any interference by us. The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
16. However, it is open to the appellant to seek necessary permission from the concerned authority in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, read with the rules thereunder and if such an application is made before the authority thereunder, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions contained therein.
17. The prayer made in W.P(C) 30788/2009 is for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2 application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner in possession of 31.14 cents of property comprised in different survey numbers of Kodumbu Village in Palakkad Taluk. Though the application was submitted in June, 2009, the same is not considered. It was in the mean time, that the State Government enacted Act 2008. According to him, the land is a dry land and the same is to be considered under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the light of what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment, since the application Ext. P2 is not yet disposed of, the Revenue Divisional Officer will consider the same and after due enquiry, if he finds that the land is not a paddy land or a wet land, then the application will be processed in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order. On the other hand, if it is found to be a paddy land or wet land, necessarily, the application will have to be rejected enabling the petitioner to seek consideration of his claim for permission under there levant provisions o f Act 28/2008. However, since no finding as such is reached on his application, we direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and subject to what is stated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
18. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
19. W.P(C) 13535/2009 is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent, namely, the Re venue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam to issue KLU Order in respect of the petitioner's land, as has been directed in Ext. P 11, granting permission for the construction of the building on his property as sought for in Ext. P10, within a specified time and further, for issuance of a direction commanding the third respondent Municipality to process his application for building permit, Ext. P3, within a specified time and to declare that his property covered by Exts. P4 and P5 being a garden land for the last 50 years as per the reports of the Revenue authorities, he is entitled to get a KLU order and permission to construct building therein. He also seeks to quash Exts. P15 and P17 as illegal and arbitrary and not applicable to his case and for a further declaration that Ext. P10 application is liable to be considered by the second respondent untrammelled by Ext. P17. Ext. P16 is a communication dated 14.5.2009 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam to the petitioner herein as per which he was intimated that his application for permission to convert 104.1/4 cents of paddy land comprised in Sy. No. 280/6,280/3 for other purposes, cannot be considered in view of the Government letter second cited therein ie. Government Letter dated 17.11.2007 Ext. P17 is a copy of the letter issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Kerala addressed to the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, All District Collectors and to all Revenue Divisional Officers, directing them that since the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 has came into force, applications for permission to convert such land for other purposes received after that date need not be entertained, considered or decided.
20. We may now set out the facts in detail as follows:
Petitioner is presently running a Tourist Resort. As a part of the expansion programme of the Tourism business, a project report was prepared for establishing a three star hotel in his garden land available at Ottappalam Village in Palakkad District on the side of the Palakkadu - Ottappalam State Highway. Ext. P1 is the project report and the project is stated to be established with the financial assistance from the Kerala Financial Corporation. Copy of the petition submitted to the Kerala Financial Corporation for loan is produced as Ext. P2. The estimated cost of the Project is around Rs. 15 crores. Petitioner prepared a plan for the proposed hotel building and presented the same in the municipality for permit under the Kerala Municipal Building Rules with all required documents. Copy of the application for building permit is produced as Ext. P3. Since in the possession certificate, the property was shown as ‘Nancha-I land (single crop land) the municipality insisted for permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for processing the same. Though the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, she was reluctant to receive the application and hence he approached the Land Revenue Commissioner, who conducted enquiry through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and Village Officer and obtained reports about the nature of the land and other particulars. All these authorities reported that the property is a garden land for the last about 50 years and trees of 50 years growth are also seen there and the neighbouring properties are also garden land with concrete buildings. According to the petitioner, after obtaining the aforesaid report and records from the revenue authorities, the Land Revenue Commissioner, instead of taking a decision on the application, forwarded all the records to the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing him to pass orders in accordance with the orders in force. This was also communicated to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext. P 11 letter from the first respondent. On his application under the Right to Information Act, copies of the reports of the revenue authorities and other materials collected by them were issued to him which are produced as Ext. P 13 series along with the Writ Petition. These documents, which are self explanatory, would show that though the property is mistakenly described in the possession certificate as a Nancha-I land, it is a garden land for about 50 years. The purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal Ottappalam as early as on 12.1.1988 also confirms this. Ext. P4 is a title deed in respect of the land where the description of the property is shown as ‘garden land’. The purchase certificate issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act from the competent statutory Tribunal as per Ext. P5 shows that the extent of 98 cents of land in Sy. No. 280/4 and 280/6 of Palappuram Desam, Ottappalam - II, Palakkad District, in respect of which the certificate is issued, is a paramba. Ext. P6 is a copy of the receipt issued for remitting land tax. Ext. P7 is a possession certificate issued by the Village Officer. Ext. P8 series is said to be the photographs of the property. Ext. P9 is a sketch.
21. Based on the above documents as certified by various revenue authorities, petitioner asserts that the land in question is a paramba and not a paddy field as defined under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 nor a property as defined under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and there was no need or necessity to seek any permission either under the Kerala Land Utilization Order or under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and it is only because of the insistence of the Panchayat authorities that he applied for permission under the KLU Order which, however, after enquiry as evidenced by the various reports starting from that of the Village Officer up to the Revenue Divisional Officer, abundantly proves the nature of the land as falling outside the purview of either the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order or Act 28/2008. It is therefore prayed that a declaration may be made in his favour to the effect that the land in question is not covered under any of the provisions of the Order/Act and there is no other embargo for construction of the building.
22. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Municipality has already approved the plan submitted by the petitioner. But as per the interim order, he has to obtain permission before starting actual construction and he prays that permission may be granted by this Court to proceed with the construction in accordance with the approved plan.
23. On behalf of the respondents, there is no serious dispute regarding the nature of the land as possessed and owned by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Land Revenue Commissioner, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Ottappalam Municipality and the State of Kerala are arrayed as respondents in this Writ Petition. No counter affidavit, disputing the correctness of facts as alleged in the Writ Petition, is filed. We have also heard the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State. We have already decided that the new Act enacted namely, Act 28/2008 applies only to ‘paddy land’ and ‘wet land’. Both the terms are defined in the said Act to which reference has been made while deciding the question of law. Under the Kerala Land Utilization Order ‘food crops’ is defined. We have already held that in respect of ‘food crops’ other than paddy, Kerala Land Utilization Order continues to be in force whereas in respect of ‘paddy field’ on and from the date of commencement of Act 28/2008, permission, if any, has to be obtained in terms of the provisions contained therein. In the nature of materials placed on record and after perusing the same, we are satisfied that the land in question is not a land where there is any food crop nor is it a paddy field as defined under Act 28/2008. In such circumstances, normally, when the petitioner approached the authority for necessary permit under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, after due enquiry the authority ought to have entered a finding regarding the nature of the land. In this case, though a detailed enquiry was conducted and the authorities were satisfied that this is only a paramba/garden land, still they did not issue a proper certificate declaring so, because of the Government direction contained in Ext. P 17, which we find, has no application. Ext. P17 specifically directs the authorities not to process the application in respect of paddy field alone and hence even Ext. P1 7 has no application with reference to the land in question.
24. In the result, we declare that the petitioner is entitled to proceed to construct the building in accordance with the approved plan and that his land is not covered either by the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order or Act 28/2008. The Writ Petition is thus allowed.