The court established that reclaimed land's classification should be determined by its actual nature rather than solely by revenue records.

JUDGMENT

Rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner for constructing a building in the property (which is having an extent of 3.77 cents of land, owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner) vide Ext.P4 issued by the first respondent, is under challenge. The case of the petitioner is that, it is a Charitable Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, constituted with intent to provide help and assistance to the poor and patients suffering from serious ailments. In view of the laudable object that is being undertaken by the petitioner, a well-wisher has donated the property having an extent of 3.77 cents of land, which is a reclaimed land, to the petitioner. The petitioner vide Ext.P2 application sought for permission to construct a building, which came to be rejected by the Panchayat, as per Ext.P2(a). Even though, the petitioner took up the matter before the Government by filing an application on 29.03.2012, the same also came to be rejected as per Ext.P4 communication dated 16.8.2012 stating that construction can be permitted in lands of such nature only in respect of W.P.(C)No.24223/2012 2 a 'residential building' having an area upto 300 M2.

2. No counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner chose to file a representation before the fourth respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5. The request made by the petitioner is for re-classification of the land, it being a reclaimed 'Purayidom' in respect of which reclamation was effected decades back i.e. much prior to the coming into operation of the Paddy Act, 2008. The learned counsel submits that, the relief now pressed before this Court is to cause Ext.P5 to be considered by the first respondent in the light of the law declared by this Court as per the decision reported in

2012 (3) KLT 333 ( Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer).

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. It is brought on record that the property involved herein is not shown as Paddy land in the Data Bank Register, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner as Ext.P1. Similarly, the concerned Agricultural Officer has certified vide Ext.P3 dated 28.3.2012 that the property comprised in Sy.No.272/5 of the concerned Village is lying as 'reclaimed land' for more than 10 years and this has W.P.(C)No.24223/2012 3 been endorsed in the Data Bank prepared for the area in the Panchayat. It has already been held by this Court that the actual physical nature of the property has to be ascertained and the mere description of the land as 'Nilam' in the revenue records will not be enough to declare the status of the property concerned. The way in which the issue has to be dealt with is made clear by this Court in Shahanaz Shukoor v. Chelannoor Grama Panchayat ( 2009 (3) KLT 899) and Praveen v.

Land Revenue Commissioner ( 2010 (2) KLT 617).

5. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the law declared by this Court as per the decisions cited supra, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within 'six weeks' 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 and also I.A.No.1924/2013 before the fourth respondent for further steps.

Writ petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON sv JUDGE W.P.(C)No.24223/2012 4 sv.

W.P.(C)No.24223/2012 5