Kerala High Court
C.C.Thomas vs The District Collector on 31 January, 2012
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 27037 of 2013 (D)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
C.C.THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE C.M. CHACKO, CHEMMALAKUZHY HOUSE, PLOT NO 70,
KUMARANASAN NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682020
BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM 682002.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA 686575.
3. THE TAHSIDAR,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NEEZHOOR 686612, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NEEZHOOR 686612 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,(THE CONVENER
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
NEEZHOOR PANCHAYATH).
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 27037 of 2013 (D)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NHO C5-8492/2011 DATED 31-01-2012
PASSED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO C5-3583/12, 3584/12 DATED 24-12-
2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10-01-2013 SENT TO THE
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 30-12-2004
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED IST DAY OF THE KANNI 1125
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 05-10-1989 EXECUTED IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17-11-1983
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED 05-10-1989 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17-1-1989
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17-02-2007
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-02-2013 SENT TO ALL THE
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-03-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-10-2013 SENT TO THE IST
AND 5TH RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P14 POTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-06-2013 IN PWC NO
24568/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-08-2013 IN WPC NO
18501/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 27037 of 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 4th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner and his wife are the owners of the property having an extent of 87.60 Ares comprised in Re-survey No. 4/7 of the Neezhoor village. 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 nikathu purayidam' in the revenue records, such as Basic Tax Register and 'Thandapper Register'. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the Revenue Authorities by filing necessary representation as early as on 10.01.2013 for effecting correction in the records, it did not turn to be fruitful. Hence this writ petition.
2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner with an intent to construct a residential house in the property, had approached the 4th respondent/Village Officer for issuance of possession certificate, but the same was not acceded to, referring to the entry in respect of some portion of the property in the revenue record as 'Nilam Nikathu Purayidam'. In the W.P.(C) No. 27037 of 2013 : 2 : said circumstances, the petitioner filed a representation before the village officer to measure the property concerned and to issue possession certificate separately. Since nothing transpired in the positive, the petitioner and his wife were constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 15975 of 2012, which was disposed of on 19.07.2012 directing the concerned Tahsildar to take a decision within three weeks. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner and his wife were required to submit an application in Form No. 8, as per Survey Manual, whereupon Ext. P2 proceedings came to be issued by the additional Tahasildar to the effect that 72.53 Ares of the property comprised in Re-Survey No. 4/7 of Neezure village (belonging to the petitioner) had to be included as 'Nilam', while the property having an extent of 14.90 Ares (belonging to the wife of the petitioner) comprised in Re.Survey No. 4/7-2 was to be included as 'purayidam' in the revenue records. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 request before the respondents to change the description of the property belonging to the petitioner in the revenue records and also to exclude the same from the Data Bank Register, if the same stands already included.
W.P.(C) No. 27037 of 2013 : 3 :
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. If the property is included in the Data Bank Register, any application for correction or deletion is 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) KLT 545]. It has been declared as per the decision rendered in JafarKhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC 523] that the provisions of the Conservation of Kerala paddy land and Wet land Act are applicable only in respect of the lands which were lying as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. It has been further asserted by another learned Judge of this Court in Asharaf K.K. And Ors Vs. Eramala Grama Panchayath and Ors (2012 (3) KLT 323) that , if the land is not included in the Data Bank Register prepared under the Act, it cannot be classified as 'paddy land' or 'wet land'. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) 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 W.P.(C) No. 27037 of 2013 : 4 : Kerala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party concerned to make use of the property for other appropriate purpose. It has been further made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Vs, Killimangalam Panchal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka Samooham (2012 (4) KLT 511) that the land reclaimed prior to the commencement of the relevant Act can be made use of, even for 'Industrial purpose'.
5. In the said circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 representation, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court in 2013 (3) KLT 545 (cited supra), after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and forward the report along with the proceedings to the second respondent for further steps. On receipt of the same, the second respondent shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court in the decisions cited supra. This shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' W.P.(C) No. 27037 of 2013 : 5 : thereafter.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the 5th respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd