Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY,THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).NO. 867 OF2014(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- M.P.MARIYAKKUTTY UMMA, D/O.M.P.ABDULLA KURIKKAL, MANCHERI PUTHUSSERI (HOUSE), THURAKKAL, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI-676 123.
4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (DATA BANK), MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI-676 585.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJERI-676 123. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. SOYUZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PRV. W.P.(C).NO.867/2014-G: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED1510/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED1612/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE4H RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. PRV. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 867 OF2014......................................................................... Dated this the 11th February, 2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of 12 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.6/5A of Manjeri Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District. The petitioner is aggrieved of classification of the said property as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and also in the Draft Data Bank Register, though the physical nature of the property is actually of 'dry land'. In the said circumstance, the petitioner has approached the 4th respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee for deletion of the property from the Data Bank Register and for reclassification of the property. Since no positive action has been taken by the 4th respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The legal position has been made clear by this Court as per the decision in Jafarkhan vs.Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT491, whereby it has been held that if the property was not lying as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008 as on the date of W.P.(C)No. 867 OF20142 commencement of the said Act, it does not have any application at all.
4. Under such circumstance, the claim of the petitioner , if at all any, to permit her to make use of the property for other purposes than agricultural purpose is liable to be entertained in the light of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , which is the law declared by this Court as per the decision in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT617. Similarly, it is settled law that, if the property came to be wrongly included in the Data Bank Register, it is for the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider and take remedial measures for causing the same to be deleted by way of appropriate steps. (See the decision in Shafeeque vs. State of Kerala [2014 (1) KLT194) 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the 4th respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take all necessary steps to have a logical conclusion with reference to the actual nature of the property concerned, if any petition is preferred in this regard. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised, after local W.P.(C)No. 867 OF20143 inspection with notice to the petitioner, at the earliest , at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will be free to approach the second respondent/District Collector, on the basis of the proceedings as above, for getting appropriate orders under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. If any such application is filed under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the property for other purposes than agricultural purposes the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent/District Collector ( if the property is actually not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the Act), which shall be finalised after hearing the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within two months. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondents for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk