Proper notice and opportunity to be heard are essential before changing entries in land records.

J U D G M E N T

[WP(C) Nos.43628/2023, 20654/2023, 28710/2022]

The petitioner, in W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2022, is stated to have purchased 4.60 Ares of land on behalf of the trust in the year 2015. According to him, the property was described as “Purayidam” in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), tax receipt as well as in the parent document of the year 1991, which is produced as Ext.P4. On the basis of the building permit at Ext.P10, issued by the respondent – Panchayat, he started construction in the aforementioned property. It was at that point of time, at the instance of the additional 3^rd respondent, who filed a complaint, that the Tahasildar sought to correct the entry in the BTR as “Nilam”. Though an appeal was preferred against the afore proceedings, that was also rejected. According to the petitioner, the impugned order at Ext.P6, as per which the Tahasildar corrected the entry in the BTR, has been issued without there being an opportunity for hearing. It is the further proceedings based on the order of the Tahasildar dated 30.11.2021 which is the subject matter of the challenge in W.P. (C) No.28710 of 2022.

2. Since in Ext.P6 order in W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2022, it was stated that the petitioner would be free to take steps under the provisions of theKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioner instituted an application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, seeking to change the character of the property. The afore application has been rejected by virtue of Ext.P16 order dated 21.09.2023 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is sought to be challenged in W.P.(C) No.43628 of 2023. In the meantime, the Revenue Divisional Officer had also included the property referred to above in the data bank pursuant to Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C) No.20654 of 2023, and based on which the Agricultural Officer issued Ext.P14, which is challenged therein.

3. I have heard Sri.Nidheesh S, the learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases, Sri.George Sebastian, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2022 and Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

4. As already noticed, the entire controversy is pursuant to the order at Ext.P6 in W.P. (C) No.28710 of 2022. The case of the additional 3^rd respondent therein is to the effect that in the BTR the property is described as “Purayidam” without taking note of the actual position, and it is on that basis the order at Ext.P6 has been issued. The learned counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent also stated that the piece of land is part of a large extent of “padasekharam”, and that is why he sought to point out before the Tahasildar that the description in the BTR should be corrected. A perusal of the order at Ext.P6 in W.P. (C) No.28710 of 2022 would show that the said order has been issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent invited the attention of this Court to Annexure R3(a) notice dated 09.12.2021, this Court notices that the afore notice is not even referred to in the order at Ext.P6. In any event of the matter, the impact of the parent document at Ext.P4 is also not seen considered while issuing the order at Ext.P6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is justified in contending that the order at Ext.P6 requires to be set aside. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2022 would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6. The Tahasildar is directed to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, while proceeding to change the entries in the BTR. The petitioner would be entitled to point out his objections as against the notice to be issued. The Tahasildar is directed to pass fresh orders on that basis.

5. W.P.(C) No.20654 of 2023 wo