The classification of land in the Basic Tax Register is authoritative, and the Village Officer lacks jurisdiction to issue stop memos when the property is classified as 'purayidom'.

JUDGMENT :

W.P(C) No.4012 of 2021 is filed challenging Exts.P15 and P23 orders. By Ext.P15 the Village Officer has taken a decision that the property having an extent of 16 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.55/7 in Resurvey Block No.5 (Old Survey 229) of Nedumpram Village in Thiruvalla Taluk is a paddy land. The said finding in Ext.P15 was confirmed by the District Collector by Ext.P23 order. It is to be seen that pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P23 in WP(C) No.4012 of 2021 a Contempt of Court proceedings was initiated by the petitioner as C.O.C. No.288 of 2022 which lead to Ext.P24 judgment produced in W.P(C)No.23869 of 2021. Based on which revised orders in the place of Ext.P23 order in WP(C) No.4012 of 2021 was issued as Ext.P25 and therefore, it is challenging Ext.P25 revised order that W.P(C) No.23869 of 2021 is filed. Therefore, W.P(C) No.23869 of 2021 will be treated as the leading case.

2. It is averred that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Airport Authority of India. The petitioner and his wife possess 16 Ares of landed property, a coconut plantation, comprised in Re-survey No.55/7 in Resurvey Block No.5 (Old Survey 229) in Thandapper 13640 in Nedumpram Village in Thiruvalla Taluk. Petitioner purchased the said property after availing a loan. After the purchase of the property, Ext.P1 possession certificate was issued in which the property is described as garden land. Petitioner further submits that the said land is having 30 year old coconut trees and is lying adjacent to the Thiruvalla-Ambalappuzha State Highway and there are so many commercial buildings situated on the boundaries of the petitioner's property. It is also contended that the stamp duty for 'garden land having state highway access' was also paid being the fair value fixed by the Government for registration of the document. In Ext.P2 title deed of the property and the prior title deed Ext.P3, the description of the property is as 'purayidam'. Ext.P4 is a land tax receipt which also show that the property is classified as 'purayidam'. It is further contended that the property is not included in the data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 as evident from Ext.P5 certificate and the relevant portion of the data bank. Petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the 6^th respondent local authority, the 6^th respondent insisted the petitioners to produce the possession certificate in the name of the petitioner and his wife, for processing the application for building permit. Thereupon, petitioner submitted necessary application before the 1^st respondent to grant permission for utilising 16 Ares of land for construction of residential house. On the said application as per the direction of the 1^st respondent RDO, the 3^rd respondent had submitted Ext.P6 report along with a mahazar and the copy of BTR. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P7 possession certificate, but the nature of the property was entered as 'wet land' in Ext.P7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.14175 of 2018, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner. As per the direction of this Court in Ext.P8, Ext.P10 possession certificate was issued wherein the property was shown as dry land instead of wet land. Thereupon, on application Ext.P11 building permit was issued to the petitioner. But when the petitioner started construction of the work as per Ext.P11 it was found that the level of the property has to be raised to the level of the State Highway so as to undertake the construction activity and thereupon the petitioner attempted to fill up the land with earth collected from other areas though contractors having valid permit and consequently Ext.P12 request was made before the 1^st respondent to grant permission for development of the land up to the leve