The actual state of land as per inspection takes precedence over the outdated entries in revenue records in determining land conversion under applicable land utilization laws.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner claims to be the owner of 6.90 ares of property situated in RS 345/5 in Block No.25 of Omalloor Village in Pathanamthitta District. By Ext.P3 order dated 17/11/2005, 3rd respondent accorded sanction to the petitioner to convert the land exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Utilization Order . Subsequently, when the petitioner made an application for a possession certificate, Ext.P5 possession certificate was issued describing the land to be nilam.

2. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Exts.P6, P7 and P8 applications to respondents 2, 3 and 4 requesting that he be issued a fresh possession certificate mentioning the land as a dry land/garden land inspite of wet land. This application was considered and the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 reply contending that though by Ext.P3, the petitioner was permitted to convert the land, nothing was done in pursuance thereof and that as per the revenue records, the land is still retained as nilam and therefore the request made as per Exts.P6 to P8 cannot be considered. It is WPC No.8407/10 :2 :

on receipt of Ext.P9, the writ petition is filed.

3. In para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that on receipt of the application, 3rd respondent enquired into the matter and obtained reports and that the reports state that the property has not been converted as a dry land. Therefore, it is contended that inspite of Ext.P3, petitioner did not take any action for converting the land and therefore the land is still shown as nilam in the revenue records.

4. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the land has been converted by him as a dry land.

5. Therefore, the fact that the land was originally a nilam, as stated in the revenue records, does not seem to be a matter of dispute. It is also not a matter of dispute that by Ext.P3 order dated 17/11/2005, the petitioner was permitted to convert the land as a dry land in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order .

6. Going by the statements in Ext.P9, it is also evident that the petitioner did increase the height of the land. However, WPC No.8407/10 :3 :

while the 4th respondent states that the petitioner did not reclaim the land fully, the petitioner contradicts the same by saying that he did reclaim the land fully in compliance with Ext.P3. Therefore, in my view, in the light of the above, the disputed issue is whether the land in question has been reclaimed as authorized in Ext.P3. The resolution of this issue require that the 4th respondent should personally conduct an inspection and on such inspection, if the land in question is found to be one which is reclaimed in pursuance to Ext.P3, irrespective of the entries in the revenue records, the 4th respondent should issue the possession certificate as sought for by the petitioner disclosing the actual nature of the land as it is seen on inspection.

7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(1) That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the

4th respondent will inspect the land covered by Ext.P3 and on inspection, 4th respondent will issue a possession certificate to the petitioner disclosing the actual nature of land without in any way being influenced by the entry contained in the revenue records.

WPC No.8407/10 :4 :

(2) This process shall be done by the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp