Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19736
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
JAMAL K K – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONMAL OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 24233/2013
The court established that applications for correcting land records must be considered in accordance with applicable land utilization laws, ensuring procedural fairness.
Headnote:
Land - Property Rights - Kerala Land Utilisation Order - Section 7 - The court directed the relevant authority to consider the petitioner's application for correcting land records, emphasizing the need for adherence to land utilization regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners owned specific parcels of land described as 'Nilam' in revenue records but claimed they should be classified as 'Purayidam'. They submitted reports confirming the properties were not wet lands and filed an application to correct the records, which went unaddressed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for correcting the revenue entries was legitimate and that appropriate action should be taken in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, while ensuring the petitioners had the opportunity to be heard.
Issues: Whether the application for correcting inaccuracies in the land records should be considered under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of accurately classifying agricultural land and mandated a decision on the petitioners' application, based on prior guidelines set by a Division Bench.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the authority to consider the application within two months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated as the owners of 02.19 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.106/3 PT, 05.90 Ares in 106/8PT, 03.80 Ares in Re- Survey No. 106/3 PT and 0.0025 Ares in Re-Survey No.106/2 PT, 04.47 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.106/16, 05.65 Ares in Re- Survey No. 02.74 Ares in Re-Survey No.106/3 PT and 07.38 Ares in 106/8 PT in Re-Survey Block No.9 of Vazhakkala Village in Ernakulam District. The case of the petitioners is that the properties are wrongly described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. It is stated that, the properties are described as 'Purayidam' in the Data Bank Register. Petitioners relies on Exts.P5(a), P5(b) and P6 reports of the concerned Village Officer and Tahsildar respectively certifying that the properties are not wet lands and that there is no paddy cultivation in the properties or in the nearby properties. Though the petitioners filed Ext.P7 application for correcting the entries in the revenue records, no action has been taken so far. Hence the writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.24233/2013 2
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that Ext.P7 application preferred by the petitioners is liable to be considered by the first respondent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order . Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the and also in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in the decision reported in2010 ( 2) KLT 617 ( Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner ), which shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.
W.P.(C)No.24233/2013 2 W.P.(C)No.24233/2013 2
