The determination of land classification impacts its permissible uses, requiring jurisdictional authority to confirm if a property is 'paddy land' or 'wet land'.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a cancer patient who has undergone a major surgery and radiation in connection with his treatment. The petitioner is the owner of the property comprised in R.S. No. 323/4 and his brothers are owning properties in R.S. Nos. 323/7, 323/8 and 323/9 in Muthuvalloor Village. There is no vehicular access to the house of the petitioner situated in the above mentioned property. There is a wide road upto 300 meters and if 150 meters more are widened, vehicles can reach the house of the petitioner and hence tried to fill some red earth in the property for constructing a 3 meter road which was intercepted by the respondents stating that the concerned property is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records.

2. According to the petitioner, the above said property is 'dry land' and is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as per the definition under Sections 2(xii) and 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P3 series photographs show the lie and location of the property and the nature of the land. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer stating that the property is not shown as paddy land in the Data Bank Register. The case of the petitioner is that, there are a lot of improvements in the concerned property such as coconut/areacanut palms and several trees of more than 40 years of age and hence seeks to have the entry in the BTR corrected.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the matter requires to be considered and finalized by the competent authority. It has to be ascertained whether the property is actually a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Act 28 of 2008. The competent authority to consider the matter is the District Collector. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to approach the 1st respondent by filing necessary application for redressal of the grievance within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court as per the decision rendered in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram & Others (2010 (2) KLT 617), holding that, if the property was not remaining as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of Act 28 of 2008, it has to be considered in terms of Clause 6 of the Karala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party to make use of the property for any other purpose than agricultural purpose. This shall be done after hearing the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month' thereafter.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before 1st respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

kp/-