1. The petitioner, who holds 7.28 Ares of property in Thrikkariyoor Village of Kothamangalam Taluk, has filed the writ petition seeking to quash condition No.3 in Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P3 order to the extent it directs the petitioner to set apart ten percent land for water conservancy measures.

2. The petitioner states that in respect of the land held by him, the petitioner submitted three applications under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (in short, 'KLU Order'). The 3rd respondent-Taluk Surveyor prepared a sketch setting apart 10% of the petitioner’s land for water conservancy measures. The 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the applications of the petitioner as per EXt.P5 common order.

3. Ext.P5 contained a condition that 10% of land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. There is further condition that for getting Building Permit, the petitioner has to effect necessary changes in the Revenue records as per existing laws, paying the prescribed fees. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said conditions.

4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the applications under KLU Order were submitted by the petitioner prior to the amendment to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 introducing Section 27A and hence the petitioner cannot be mulcted with any fees payable under Section 27A.

5. The provision mandating setting apart 10% land for water conservancy measures was also introduced as per the Amendment Act, 2017 and therefore the petitioner, who has submitted applications under KLU Order prior to such amendment, cannot be compelled to set apart land as marked by the Taluk Surveyor in his sketch for water conservancy measures, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a Statement dated 24.11.2021 contesting the writ petition. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Senior Government Pleader submitted that as per Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967, the competent authority can prescribe terms for grant of permission. As per Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent granted permission on conditions. Ten percent of the total extent of the land sought to be converted has to be earmarked for water conservatory measures. The condition was prescribed by the 2nd respondent as a measure to protect the nearby drainage channels and paddy lands.

7. The petitioner is duty bound to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5 order, contended the Senior Government Pleader. The 2nd respondent has prescribed conditions in Ext.P5 order as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and not under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The conditions put forth in Ext.P5 order to set apart 10% of the land sought to be converted for water conservancy measures is legal. The conditions were incorporated to protect nearby paddy lands and the drainage channel for protecting nearby agricultural activities, urged the Senior Government Pleader.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner submitted applications for permission to use his land for non-agricultural purposes invoking the provisions of the KLU Order, which were allowed by Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent has stipulated conditions requiring the petitioner to set apart land for water conservancy measures and to effect changes in the nature of the land in Revenue records, paying the prescribed fees.

10. The KLU Order does not envisage setting apart any part of the land for water conservancy measures and payment of any fee for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records. Both the said conditions are contemplated in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and that too, after the amendment of the Act, 2008, in the year 2017.

11. The petitioner’s applications under the KLU Order were made on 08.10.2017. Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 mandating water conservancy measures and payment of fees for effecting changes in the nature of land in Revenue records, was introduced only by the Amendment Act, 2018 with effect from 30.12.2017.

12. In Renji K. Paul and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others [2019 (2) KLT 262 [LQ/KerHC/2019/398] ], this Court held that application submitted prior to 30.12.2017 seeking permission for conversion of a paddy land need to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 as the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and 12. In Renji K. Paul and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others [2019 (2) KLT 262 [LQ/KerHC/2019/398] ], this Court held that application submitted prior to 30.12.2017 seeking permission for conversion of a paddy land need to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 as the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

13. In Shanmugam v. District Collector [2019 (2) KLT 45 [LQ/KerHC/2019/575] ], a Division Bench of this Court held that when permission is granted and is under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the direction to comply with the procedure under the amended provisions of Rule 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for getting the Basic Tax Register corrected cannot be sustained.

14. The afore judgments were followed by this Court again in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (3) KLT 838 [LQ/KerHC/2019/1095] ]. In view of the reasons given by this Court in the judgment in Geo Peter (supra), the conditions stipulated by the 2nd respondent to set apart 10% of the petitioner's land for water conservancy measures, is also not sustainable.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and condition No.3 in Ext.P5 order passed by the 2 nd respondent is quashed. Ext.P5 order to the extent it directs the petitioner to set apart 10% of the land for water conservancy measures, is also quashed. Consequently, the 3 rd respondent is directed to make necessary changes in Ext.P4 sketch by deleting the area set apart for water conservancy measures.