The classification of property as purayidom must respect statutory document integrity, aligning with jurisprudential precedents despite conflicting title descriptions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 Order, which rejected the petitioner’s application to receive land tax, treating the property as a ‘purayidom’. In Ext.P8, what is directed is that land tax can be accepted treating the property as a purayidom only after effecting necessary corrections in the Village records. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, earlier, tax was received from the petitioner’s predecessor, treating the property as a purayidom. In the B.T.R, the property is classified as purayidom. The property is not included in the data bank. Only in the settlement register, the property stands described as ‘nilam’. It has been held by this Court in Indira P.S and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and another [2020(4)KHC 33] that B.T.R is a vital statutory document, and the entries therein cannot be ignored simply. The entries in the settlement register, which reflects the old state of affairs, cannot be decisive, was also held. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the law laid down in Indira P.S (supra).

2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner’s property has been described in his title deed as a ‘nilam’.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, this Court notice that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained, inasmuch as it has not taken into consideration the dictum laid down in Indira P.S (supra). As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the property is described as purayidom in the B.T.R, and tax was received from the petitioner’s predecessor, describing the property as purayidom. The physical lie and nature of the property is also that of purayidom, is the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If that be so, only for reason of an entry in the settlement register, the property cannot be classified as nilam, contrary to its present nature. The fact that it is referred to as nilam in the title document also cannot be of much significance, it seems.

4. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent/ Tahsildar to physically visit the property to ascertain its present nature, before passing necessary orders in the petitioner’s request to accept land tax describing the land in question as purayidom. The impact of the judgment in Indira P.S (supra) shall also be looked into. A decision shall be taken, with due regard to the law laid down in Indira P.S (supra), and also, on the basis of the present nature of the property. Let necessary action be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for necessary action.

This Writ Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-