Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar P vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 January, 2013
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2013/1ST CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 8108 of 2013 (K)
-------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
SURESH KUMAR P., AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT CHANDRANILYAM, KONGAD
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 631.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, TAREKAD, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2. TAHSILDAR,
PALAKKAD TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
3. VILLAGE OFFICER,
KONGAD-I VILLAGE OFFICE, KONGAD, PALAKKAD-678 631.
4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 631.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VINCENT K.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8108 of 2013 (K)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/1/2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT R.D.O., REQUESTING TO
CHANGE ENTRIES IN B.T.R. AND RECLASSIFY THE LAND AS IT EXISTS
TODAY.
EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/2/2015 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
--------------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
DSV/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P. ) No. 8108 OF 2013
.........................................................................
Dated this the 22nd March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
"i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for making necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register by changing the classification of the petitioner's property and take a decision thereon within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) Declare that the petitioner's property in Re.Survey No.295/13 (Old No.224/1,2,4,8) in Kongand I Village of Palakkad Taluk is to be reclassified as parambu (dryland) in the Basic Tax Register by changing the classification of the property now entered in the Register.
iii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case." W.P. ) No. 8108 OF 20130 2
2. Petitioner is the owner of 80 cents of property in Re.Sy.No.295/13 of Kongand I Village of Palakkad Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that the property belonging to the petitioner is a 'parambu (dryland)' having reclaimed years back and that the petitioner has effected quite a lot of improvements. It is contended that, the property happens to be shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, which however does not reflect the actual physical nature of the property. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief sought for is for issuance of a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 representation, within a reasonable time to have reclassification of land.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Jalaja Dileep vs. RDO (2012(3)KHC 273), the competent authority to deal with the matter is none other than the second respondent.
4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to forward W.P. ) No. 8108 OF 20130 3 Ext.P1 representation to the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible; on receipt of which, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in the light of law declared by this Court in 2009 (3) KLT 899 (Shahanaz Shukkoor vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat ) and Jalaja Dileep vs. RDO (2012(3)KHC 273) after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six' weeks from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 representation. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk