The authorities must adhere to court directives in land classification matters, ensuring fairness and prompt compliance.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Exhibit P9 order passed by the 3^rd Respondent.

II. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Exhibit P10 demand notice issued by the 3^rd Respondent. III. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to 3^rd respondent to permanently change the nature of 63.13 Ares of land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No. 496/7-6 (22.66 ares) and in 496/8-10 (40.47 ares) in Alangad Village Paravur Taluk of Ernakulam District as ‘purayidom’in the revenue records and in the BTR.

IV. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for a permanent change in the nature of 63.13 Ares of land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No. 496/7-6 (22.66 ares) and in 496/8-10 (40.47 ares) in Alangad Village Paravur Taluk of Ernakulam District as ‘purayidom’ in the revenue records and in the BTR.

V. Translation of vernacular documents produced as exhibits in this case may be dispensed with as the same will be produced as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court; and VI. Grant such other reliefs which are appropriate and incidental to this proceeding and which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. ”[SIC]

2. The 2^nd respondent allowed the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967, as evident by Ext.P2. The 2^nd respondent also allowed the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner as evident by Ext.P3. The petitioner submitted Form-A application to the 3^rd respondent to change the nature of the land in the revenue records as evident by Ext.P4. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court seeking consideration of Form-A application and this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment directed to consider Ext.P4. The petitioner issued a letter to the 3^rd respondent enclosing a certi of the judgment as evident by Ext.P8. The 3^rd respondent issued a provisional order for changing the nature of land in the revenue records as evident by Ext.P9. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a direction to the 3^rd respondent to permanently change the nature of the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey Nos.496/7-6 (22.66 Ares) and 496/8-10 (40.47 Ares) in Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk of Ernakulam District, as ‘purayidom’ in the revenue records and in the BTR. The petitioner has relied upon Ext.P11 judgment and also the judgment of this Court in Musthafa v. State of Kerala , [2023 (5) KHC 201] .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P11 judgment observed as under:

“5. It would appear that in purported compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition referred above, the Tahsildar by an order dated 18.03.2021 (produced as Ext.P12 in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020) directed reclassification of the land as “Converted homestead” and ordered the collection of land tax based on the said category change. Finding that the said order passed by the Tahsildar was not in strict compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020, the respondent herein once again approached this Court through WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. This time around, another learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition found that the directions in the earlier judgment of this Court in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 were clear and unambiguous inasmuch as it had directed a reassessment of the land as purayidom/dry land. The learned Judge, therefore, found that it was not open to the Tahsildar to have corrected the description as “converted homestead” or “land the character of which has been changed”