Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36931
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
SAIDALAVI – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 24393/2013
Land not registered as paddy cannot be governed by Act 28 of 2008, allowing for alternative usage under the Land Utilization Order.
Headnote:
Land - Ownership - Act 28 of 2008 - Sections 2(xii), 2(xviii) - The court interpreted the definitions of paddy and wet land under the Act, emphasizing that if the land is not registered as paddy land, the Act does not apply.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owns 22.25 cents of land classified as Nilam, claiming it is not paddy or wet land under Act 28 of 2008. Photographic and expert testimonies support this classification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property not being included in the Data Bank Register exempts it from the application of Act 28 of 2008, allowing the petitioner to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.
Issues: Whether the land classified as Nilam qualifies as paddy land under Act 28 of 2008 and whether the petitioner is entitled to utilize it for non-agricultural purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that if land is not recorded in the Data Bank Register as paddy land, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 do not apply.
Final Decision: The petitioner's application for non-agricultural use of land is to be considered under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of
22.25 cents of land in Sy.No.28/8 of Ottapalam-I village. The case of the petitioner is that it is a pucca dry land and that the same is not a paddy land or wet land as defined under Sections 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of Act 28 of 2008; but the property happens to be described as Nilam in the BTR.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual nature of the property is clearly discernible from Ext.P1 series photographs and also from Exts.P5 and P6 reports of the Agricultural Officer, whereby it has been categorically conceded that the property has never been shown as 'paddy land' as in Data Bank Register. There is a specific entry that the land is being made use of for other purposes (as given in Ext.P5) and that there are quite a lot of improvements including age old trees (as given in Ext.P6); which in fact deals with the particular property involved herein.
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. The law is now settled that, if the property is not included in the Data Bank Register, Act 28 of 2008 cannot have any application as held by this Court in Jaffarkhan v.
Kochumarakkar (2012 (1 ) KLT 491).
5. This being the position, Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent has necessarily to be considered in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the property for purposes other than agricultural purpose; more so in the light of the law declared in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617), after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finaliased at the earliest and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
