The court mandates reconsideration of procedural actions taken by officials in agricultural land classifications based on adequate factual inspections.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of 77.8 Ares of dry land, falling under Sy.Nos.182/2-C1, 182/2-C2, 182/2-C3 and 182/2-D of Karumalloor Panchayat. The petitioner having realised that the properties were described as “Nilam” in the BTR, though it was included as converted land in the BTR, filed W.P.(C) No.8254 of 2016, seeking a direction to LLMC to correct the entries. After that, the petitioner is served with Ext.P2 dated 06.03.2019, placing reliance on Ext.P3 report of KSREC. In Ext.P2, it is found that out of the properties covered by the four different survey numbers, only two properties were converted prior to 2008 - the properties covered in 182/2-C2 and 182/2-C3.

2. Relying on Ext.P2, the petitioner also preferred an application in Form 7, and the Revenue Divisional Officer issued the order at Ext.P5, refusing to exercise his power with respect to the prayers in the application. It is seeking to challenge the proceedings at Exts.P2 and P5, as above, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

3. Heard Smt. C.K.Sherin, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. N.B.Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader for the respondents herein.

4. With reference to the findings in Ext.P3, a report of KSREC, this Court notices that the properties in question were paddy field only with reference to the toposheet of the year 1967. In the data of the year 2008, it is only the property in Sy.No.182-2 which was observed under agricultural land use. However, the findings in Ext.P2 do not go in tandem with the observations contained in the report of the KSREC. This is especially so when in the report of KSREC, the presence of buildings/structures, is specifically referred.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings of the Agricultural Officer, as evidenced by Ext.P2 requires to be reconsidered. It is especially so, insofar as the order does not show that an inspection of the property in person has been carried out by the agricultural officer or the village officer. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 would stand set aside, directing the Agricultural Officer to reconsider the issue with reference to the findings in Ext.P3 report of KSREC and also after carrying out a personal visit of the property, if found necessary. Needless to say, while passing orders, the Agricultural Officer should make a reference to the judgments of this Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316], Sudheesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KHC 505 ] and Kunhammed Kutty v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (2) KLT 501 ]

In view of the setting aside of Ext.P2 as above, the subsequent proceedings rejecting the application in Form 7 by Ext.P5 also requires to be set aside. There will be a direction to the RDO or the authorized officer to reconsider the application with specific reference to the findings in the orders to be passed by the Agricultural Officer. Needless to say that the petitioner requires to be granted an effective opportunity of being heard.

Accordingly, this writ petition would stand disposed of.

Sd/-