The court established that the classification of land must align with its physical characteristics, overriding erroneous revenue records.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of

73 cents of land comprised in different survey numbers of Eranellur Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.2303/2011 of SRO, Mundur. The case of the petitioner is that, it is a reclaimed land and not 'paddy land' as defined under Section 2(xii) of the Act 28 of 2008. It is pointed out that the nature of the land is discernible from Ext.P2 series photographs and Ext.P3 entry in the Data Bank Register, wherein it is shown as 'reclaimed land'.

2. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.

(C)No.16547 of 2013 for getting the grievance redressed with regard to the wrong entry made in the revenue records. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the first and second respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in the light of observations made by this Court as referred to therein and also in view of the observations by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617). It was accordingly, that the matter was considered by the third respondent/District Collector, who passed Ext.P6 order declining to extend the relief sought for, inspite of the inference arrived at with regard to the factual position in respect of the property concerned therein. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. Going by the pleadings and proceedings, it is seen that there is no dispute with regard to the physical nature of the property. This aspect was specifically taken note of by this Court in paragraph '5' of Ext.P5 judgment, which is extracted below:

“5. By virtue of the factual position narrated in the writ petition, it is seen that, there is no dispute for the respondents that the property involved in this case is a 'paddy land' as defined under Section 2(xii) or 'wet land' under Section 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008. The factual position that the property remains as a 'reclaimed land', is virtually conceded and there is no dispute regarding the same. This being the position, the physical nature of the property has necessarily to be looked into, so as to redress the grievance of the petitioner; more so, in view of the law declared by this Court on many an occasion. ”

5. The fact that the property is lying as 'reclaimed land' for years is clearly mentioned in Ext.P3 Data Bank Register as well. If the property is not included as 'paddy land' in the Data Bank Register, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 is not attracted, in view of the law declared by this Court in Jafarkhan vs. Kochumarakkar (2012 (1)KLT 491). In the said circumstance, the claim has to be considered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, particularly Clause 6, so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the property for other purpose than agricultural purpose. The factual position referred to by the second respondent herself in Ext.P6 order does not reconcile with the finding rendered.

6. In the said circumstance, this Court does not require any second thought to hold that Ext.P6 is not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is set aside. The Third respondent /District Collector is directed to re- consider the matter for settling the grievance of the petitioner, as observed by this Court in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner(2010 (2) KLT 617), which shall be done at the earliest at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that Ext. P4 petition preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent and stands forwarded to the first respondent pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment shall be treated as one preferred under Clause 6 of the KLU for making use of the property for other purposes than agricultural purposes.

The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

lk