A reassessment of property classification is necessary when previous orders and authority reports indicate changes in usage and legal compliance.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is the owner of certain properties coming within the local limits of Arakkappady Village, is aggrieved by the classification of properties as 'nilam' (paddy field) in the revenue records.

2. According to the petitioner, he is having an extent of 16.35 ares in Re.Sy. No.250/7-2, 6.35 ares in Re.Sy.No.255/1-2 and 38.06 ares in Re.Sy. No.255/3-2 in Block No.28 of Arackappady Village. The petitioner alleges that all these properties are lying contiguously; and he is conducting a sawmill/plywood factory with all the licences required from the competent authorities. According to the petitioner, two items of property, though described as paddy field in the basic tax register, have been converted into pacca garden lands about three decades back.

3. In WP(C) No.11101/2012, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Senior Town Planner, Ernakulam (the 4th respondent), by which the petitioner's application for regularizing the construction was rejected on the ground that the property, in which the building was constructed, was described as 'nilam' as per the basic tax register. The petitioner points out that Ext.P8 order was passed without hearing the petitioner and against the finding of this Court in Jafarkhan v. Kochumakkar & Others [2012 (1) KHC 523]. The petitioner alleges that he has been given consent to establish the industrial unit by the Pollution Control Board; and building permit was issued by the panchayath as early as in the year 2003. According to the petitioner, the proceedings would indicate that his land is a pacca garden land and will not come under the definition of paddy field.

4. In WP(C) No.2913/2014, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the District Collector. In the said writ petition, the petitioner alleges that though he had obtained consent from various authorities to start his industrial unit, he approached the 1st respondent, District Collector, with an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, to get the report of the Village Officer and Tahsildar as the land was converted decades back and was utilized for other purpose from 2000 onwards. The petitioner alleges that after obtaining report from the Village Officer and Tahsildar, the District Collector allowed his application and came to the conclusion that Act 28 of 2008 would not apply; and accordingly, Ext.P10 order was issued by the District Collector permitting the petitioner to carryout other activities in the land as per the Rules. However, a local resident filed WP(C) No.27855/2011 and the writ petitioner filed WP(C) No.38582/2011, which were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court quashing Ext.P10 order. This was taken in intra court appeal before the Division Bench. As per Ext.P13 judgment, which is reported (Jafarkhan's case, stated above), it was observed that the petitioner was running a sawmill and factory in 94 cents of land; and since the said land was reclaimed, he filed an application under the Land Utilization Order for permission to utilize 12.70 ares of land adjoining his factory; and the District Collector, after getting report held that the land is converted long back and it is neither paddy land or wet land; and therefore, permission was granted. The petitioner also pointed out that it was further concluded that such order has been issued by the District Collector after conducting enquiry; and based on the reports of revenue authorities, it was clearly held that the land is not paddy land or wet land within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire issue was finalized in Ext.P13 judgment and the only direction given to the District Collector was to identify the land with survey number with the help of the Village Officer; and there was no direction to render a new finding. Subsequently, a revision was filed against the Division Bench decision as RP No.400/2012 by third parties,