The Additional Tahsildar lacks authority to unilaterally change land classification without clear evidence of error, emphasizing the primacy of statutory documents.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner purchased 61½ cents of land comprised in Sy.No.331/2 of Vazhayoor Village, by Sale Deed dated 05.11.2012. According to the petitioner the property was described as ‘Purayidam’ in all Revenue records including Basic Land Tax Register, Thandaper Register, Fair Value Register and other contemporaneous documents. Petitioner has produced copy of the Basic Tax Register as Ext. P1. It shows that the description of the land was as Purayidam (garden land). Ext. P2 is a certificate issued by the Village OfÏcer on 16.01.2011 stating that the property is Purayidam. Ext. P3 extract of the Thandaper Register also shows that the description of the property was as ‘Purayidam’. Ext. P4 possession certificate dated 19.01.2013 is also produced. In the said document also the property was described as ‘Purayidam’. Ext. P6 is the extract of the Fair Value Register. In the said register the property of the petitioner has been described as residential plot with NH/PWD road access.

2. Petitioner obtained Ext. P7 building permit from the Panchayath and started construction works. On 22.04.2013, a Stop Memo was issued by the Village OfÏcer stating that the property was Nilam (Paddy Land) as per ‘A’ Register maintained by the Revenue Department. On 01.07.2015, a report was submitted by the Village OfÏcer to the Tahsildar. The said report is produced as Ext. P9. The Village OfÏcer stated that there was compound wall on three boundaries of the property and there were several coconut trees and arecanut trees aged more than 20 years in the property. Further, the Village OfÏcer stated that as per the title deed and ‘A’ Register, property was paddy land. It was also added that in the BTR prepared on the basis of resurvey, property was described as ‘Purayidam’. It was also noticed in the report that the property was not included in the Data Bank and property was not suitable for cultivating paddy. Fact that the property was described as a residential plot in the Fair Value Register was also stated in the report. The Additional Tahsildar thereafter passed an order on 11.09.2015 directing that the tenure of the property shall be corrected in the BTR and TPR as Nilam.

3. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2894 of 2015 challenging the proceedings of the Additional Tahsildar dated 11.09.2015. This Court allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 19.02.2016. The writ petition was allowed for the reason that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the Additional Tahsildar before taking the decision. The petitioner was permitted to submit objections and the additional Tahsildar was directed to take a fresh decision after adverting to the objection. Thereafter, Ext.P13 proceedings was issued by the Additional Tahsildar on 22-04.2016 after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and verifying the records and documents produced. The Additional Tahsildar has stated in Ext. P13 proceedings dated 22.04.2016 that the nature of land was recorded as Purayidam in Basic Tax Register and also in Thandaper Register. However, in the ‘A’ Register, the description was as Nilam. Previous survey number of the property was 70/1,2. When the ‘A’ Register pertaining to the said survey number was verified, it was found that the nature of the property was described as ‘Nilam’. In Cloumn Nos. 19 and 16 of Resurvey Fair Land Register also the description was as ‘Nilam’. However, when the Supplement Land Register was prepared, in column No.9 the description was recorded as ‘Nilam’ and in column No.16 it was recorded as ‘Purayidam’, by mistake. The Resurvey Superintendent had submitted a report recommending that the tenure of the property can be described as ‘Ni