Land classification in revenue records is not determinative; actual use and appropriate legal provisions should guide utilization decisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of

31.61 Ares in Re Sy.No.174/16 and 4.99 Ares in Re Sy No.174/14/1 in Block No. 29 of Ramapuram Village in Meenachil Taluk, who is the enjoying the same, also satisfying land tax, as borne by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the property is a garden land and is not a 'Paddy land' or 'Wet land' as defined under Section 2(xii) and 2(xiii) of Act 28 of 2008. It is also stated that the property is not included in the Data Bank as revealed from the extract of the Data Bank Register, which is produced as Ext.P2.

2. It was in the above circumstance, that the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application before the second respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order so as to utilize the property for some other purposes. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7571/2013, the matter was considered and the third respondent W.P.(C)No.20973/2013 2 passed Ext.P5 order dated 6.6.2013, whereby the request has been turned down, however observing the correctness of the factual position pointed out from the part of the petitioner and in turn ordering the proceedings to be forwarded to the District Collector, particularly in view of some Circular issued by the Commissioner for Land Revenue as to the course to be pursued in such cases for further action. It was accordingly, that Ext.P6 communication was issued by the said respondent to the second respondent for further steps, virtually recommending the cause projected by the petitioner. This made the petitioner to approach this Court, as the grievance stands still to be redressed.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. It has been made clear by this Court on many an occasion that, mere description of the property as 'Nilam' in the revenue records is not the relevant factor to decide the actual nature of the property. In view of the undisputed fact that the property does not come within the purview of Act 28 of 2008, the matter has necessarily to be considered in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , more so W.P.(C)No.20973/2013 3 in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court inPraveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner ( 2010(2) KLT 617 ). 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the proceedings forming the subject matter of Ext.P6, stated as forwarded by the third respondent, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in the decision cited supra. It shall also be in the light of the observations made by the third respondent in Ext.P5/P6 proceedings regarding the nature of property and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.

W.P.(C)No.20973/2013 4