Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44426
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
DANY JOSE – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2113/2014
Petitioners have the right to seek reclassification of land status under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, and authorities must provide a timely response.
Headnote:
Land - Property Ownership - Kerala Land Utilization Order - Clause 6
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of land classified as 'Purayidom' despite revenue records showing it as 'Nilam'. They argued that the land has not been used for paddy cultivation for over 30 years and sought reclassification under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had established their claims with supportive reports indicating the land's unsuitability for paddy cultivation and did not receive timely responses from the authorities. It directed the District Collector to consider their application for reclassification.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' request for reclassification of land status under the Kerala Land Utilization Order was being appropriately addressed by the relevant authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners are entitled to a fair consideration of their application to reclassify the land, as mandated by the law and supported by relevant reports.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner to approach District Collector for reclassification within two weeks.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are owners in possession and enjoyment of
392.7255 cents of land comprised in Block No.14, Re.Sy Nos. 15/4, 15/1, 10/15, 10/13 and 15/3 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulalm District. As per the title deed the nature of the land is described as 'Purayidom, whereas the property is described as 'Nilam' in the Revenue records. It is stated that, there are several improvements in the said property and there is no paddy cultivation for more than 30 years. Ext.P1 is the report of the Village Officer, Maradu in favour of the petitioners. Ext.P2 is the report of the Taluk Officer, Kanayannur stating that, there is no paddy cultivation in the property for more than 30 years. Ext.P3 is the report of the Agricultural Officer stating that the land is not suitable for cultivation. Ext.P4 is the report of the RDO, Kochi in support of Ext.P3. Ext.P5 is the version of the Local Authority in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the third respondent referred the matter to the second respondent for further orders which has been numbered as LRA 1/44040/2012 dated 21.11.2012. Ext.P6 representation was filed by the first petitioner, also on behalf of the other petitioners, requesting to consider the matter on merits under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for reclassification of status of the land. But no action is forthcoming and hence the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the competent authority to consider the matter is either RDO or the District Collector.
3. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent/District Collector by filing necessary application under Clause '6' of the KLU Order within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which the same shall be considered by the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in the light of Exts. P1 to P5 and all the relevant records, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
