Reclassification of land after a resurvey must adhere to the authority outlined in specific legislation, and actions taken without such authority are deemed invalid.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

These appeals are filed aggrieved by a common judgment dated 22 December 2020 in W.P.(C)Nos.17463/2020 and 4888/2020. The common order dated 1 December 2021 in R.P.No.620/2021 arising from W.P.(C)No.17463/2020 and R.P.No.621/2021 arising from W.P. (C)No.4888/2020 are also challenged.

2. W.P.(C)No.4888/2020 was filed by the owner of the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.493/5-1 in Block No.6 of Peringara Village in Thiruvalla Taluk, mainly for a direction to the Secretary of Peringara Grama Panchayat to issue development and building permit on the basis of Exts.P9 and P10 applications. W.P.(C)No.17463/2020 was filed by the brother of the Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4888/2020 on her behalf challenging Ext.P9 report dated 11 April 2019 of the Village Officer and proceedings dated 17 September 2019 of the Tahsildar (Land Records), Thiruvalla by which it was directed to correct the description of the property in Re.Sy.No.493/5-1 in Block No.6 of Peringara Village in Thiruvalla Taluk as 'nilam' in the revenue records.

3. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that there was no basis for re-classifying the land which was classified as 'purayidam' after re-survey in 1994. The learned Single Judge directed that the land shall be treated as 'purayidam' for all purposes and the description of the land shall be restored in revenue records as 'purayidam'. Review Petitions were filed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the Review Petitions, as the state authorities pointed out that KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008 came to force after the resurvey and classification, the learned Single Judge permitted the Authorities to proceed for including the property in data bank in accordance with law. However, the same could not be done. The Review Petitions were thereafter disposed of by order dated 1 December 2021.

4. In the writ appeals the state authorities contend that the subject property is actually a paddy land and as per the settlement register it was classified as 'nilam'. According to the Appellants, after the resurvey in 1994, the land was erroneously described in the BTR as 'purayidam'. The Appellants justified issuance of Ext.P10 by the Tahsildar (Land Records) reclassifying the property on realizing the mistake. They contended that no one can be permitted to claim benefit out of the mistake committed by the officials involved in the resurvey especially when the property still physically remains as 'nilam'. The Respondents on the other hand contended that the property was rightly described as 'purayidam' in the revenue records after the resurvey. According to the Respondents, the actual nature of the property was noticed during resurvey and thereafter corrections were made in the revenue records. They contended that the Tahsildar has no authority either under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 or under the Land Tax Act, 1961. Hence, according to them,Ext.P10 proceedings of the Tahsildar, is void for want of authority. They hence contended that the judgments under challenge are only to be upheld.

5. What we find in this case is misguided actions by the officers of the State. Confessedly, the description of the property which was classified as 'nilam' in the settlement register was changed as 'purayidam' after the resurvey. According to the Appellants, the same was a mistake committed by the officials involved in the resurvey. No doubt, the resurvey was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act , 1961. The long title of the Act describes it as an Ac