Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
ROY ABRAHAM M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 14927/2013
Correction - Property Registration - KLU - Summary of the petitioner's request for correction in property records and the court's directive for timely action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application seeking correction in property records to reflect the true nature of reclaimed land, claiming that the current classification as 'Nilam' is inaccurate and hinders better use of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application and make a decision within two months, emphasizing the importance of timely action to rectify the property classification.
Issues: Whether the delay in considering the petitioner’s application for correction of property records constitutes a legal grievance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the obligation of the authorities to address applications regarding corrections in property records promptly, in line with previous judicial observations.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with a directive for timely action.
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 application preferred before the 2nd respondent to cause to effect necessary correction/entry in the 'BTR' with regard to the nature of the property owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner is left unattended to and that the delay in considering the same is causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that, the property owned by the petitioner as above is a reclaimed dry land wherein, no paddy cultivation is being effected and is totally unsuitable for such cultivation as well. But the property remains described as 'Nilam' in the BTR, which has absolutely no nexus with the physical nature of the property as on date. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the property in a better manner, putting the same for such other use, by virtue of the enabling provisions under the KLU and it was in the said circumstance, that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P1.
W.P.(C). No. 14927 of 2013 2 It is stated that the property has been shown as 'reclaimed land' in the Date Bank Register and that the only relief sought for is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 and to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision inPraveen V. Land Revenue Commissioner, [2010 (2) KLT 617[. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps.
Writ petition is disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
