Ownership and proper classification of land as determined by relevant findings must be reassessed when based on bureaucratic error.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P4, P10 and P12 orders and also seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 complaint afresh in the light of Ext.P11 Government Order.

2. The petitioner is stated to be in ownership and possession of 17.40 Ares of land in Survey No.465/5 of Block 3 of Kidangannur Village. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner contends that he was remitting land tax also with respect to the property in question. The property was lying low compared the neighboring properties and according to the petitioner, the property was also used for paddy cultivation during the period from 1965 to 1972 on the basis of a call made by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India when there was shortage of food. The petitioner states that, in the settlement register, the property has been described as 'Purayidam'. However, according to the petitioner, on the basis of a mistake in the resurvey it got classified as 'Nilam', on account of which it was included in the data bank. In such circumstances, two sets of proceedings were initiated by the petitioner. The first one was for removing the property from the data bank by instituting an application under Form 5. The second one was for correcting the mistake in resurvey by filing a complaint with specific reference to the modality prescribed under Ext.P1 Government Order. The application at Ext.P3 is rejected by the proceedings at Ext.P4. The application seeking correction of the resurvey proceedings also was rejected pursuant to Ext.P7. Against Ext.P7, the petitioner filed further appeal and the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P8, found that the property, as per the settlement register, was a 'Purayidam', that there actually happened a mistake in resurvey as reported by the Village Officer, that the property was used only for a limited period of time for cultivation as contended by the petitioner. It was also found that the impugned order was issued without taking note of the factual position as available from the BTR as well as the other records in the revenue. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 came to be set aside directing a fresh disposal.

3. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued the impugned order at Ext.P10, rejecting the request filed by the petitioner only for the reason that the property is included in the data bank as 'Nilam'. On account of the afore, the Tahsildar further found that he has no jurisdiction to interfere in the manner. The afore order has been confirmed also by the higher authority pursuant to Ext.P12 order. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned petition is instituted by the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sunilnath, the learned Government Pleader.

5. This Court notices that, in Ext.P8, there is a categorical finding to the effect that the settlement register had noted the property to be a 'Purayidam'. Apart from this, the mistake in the survey was also found by the Village Authorities and this is also reported and is forming a part of Ext.P7. The petitioner has specifically contended and which contention has been accepted also by the RDO, that the property was used for cultivation only for a limited period of time. This Court further notices that the Local Level Monitoring Committee also has endorsed the fact that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and that the property is only lying low. In my opinion, merely for the reason that the property is lying low, the same need not be included in the data bank. Apart from, this Court also notices that even according to LLMC, there was no filling up of the land. A perusal of the photographs produced by the petitioner would also show that the property only lies l