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. 4098 of 2014 () -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- SHERLY RACHEL JOHN, MUNDAPPALLIL, 1/14 J ANSAL CITY, KUREEKKAD P.O.,KOCHI - 682 305. BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.T.B.REMANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.
2. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI -682 029 R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 4098 of 2014 () -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1965/1993 OF SRO, THRIKKAKARA EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED246.2013 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED1210.1993 SHOWING PAYMENT OF FEE TO RECLAIM THE PROPERTY. EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK. EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED199.2012 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED67.2013 EXT.P-7: ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED1111.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 4098 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as owner of the property having an extent of 23.125 cents in R. Survey No. 299/9 of Vazhakkala village, obtained to him as per Ext. P1 sale deed executed before the SRO, Thrikkakara. The case of the petitioner is that said property is 'dry land' having reclaimed in the year1993. 'According to the petitioner, the said land is neither a 'paddy land', nor a 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2 (xviii) of Act 28 of 2008, though it has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the Revenue Authorities for effecting correction in the BTR and in the 'Data Bank Register', they did not turn to be fruitful. Hence this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on instructions, that property in question is shown as 'paddy land ' in the Data Bank Register.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the request made by the petitioner, the Tahasildar called for a report from the 3rd respondent Village Officer, who after conducting a W.P.(C) No. 4098 of 2014 :
2. : spot inspection submitted Ext. P5 report to the first respondent. Pursuant to which, the first respondent submitted Ext. P6 report to the second respondent to the effect that the petitioner's property is a 'dry land' and the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008 is not applicable to the land in question. The grievance of the petitioner in spite of Exts. P5 and P6 reports, Ext. P7 application preferred by the petitioner for reclassification of land in the Data Bank Register is still to be considered.
4. The law has been declared as per the decision rendered in JafarKhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC523 that the provisions of the Conservation of Kerala paddy land and Wet land Act are applicable only in respect of the land which are lying as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT617 that, if the property concerned is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land', the application if any preferred, is to be considered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party to make use of the property for any purpose other than appropriate W.P.(C) No. 4098 of 2014 :
3. : purpose. If any correction or deletion is to be made, it has to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is the law declared by this Court in Castlerock Project and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer [2013 (3) KLT545.
4. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext. P7 in the light of Exts. P5 and P6 reports and taking note of the observations in the decisions cited supra and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, it will be open for the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities for getting entries in the BTR corrected, which shall be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd