Land classification must consider the current use and condition of the property, as established by previous judgments.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 with notice to the petitioner and in view of Ext.P3 Data Bank entry and pass orders thereon within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

ii) issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

iii) award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the co-owner of the properties having an extent of 20 Ares and 43 Sq. Metres comprised in various survey numbers of Eranellur Village; that it is a 'garden land' which was reclaimed years back with large number of usufructs aged about 30 to 40 years and that it is neither a 'paddy land' nor a 'wet land' under the Act 28 of 2008. In Ext.P3 Data Bank Register, though the nature of the property is described as 'reclaimed land', in the revenue records, it is still described as ' paddy land'. In the said circumstance, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent to change the entry in the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register.

3. Heard the learned Spl. Government Pleader (Revenue)

as well.

4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the issue ( in some other cases ) has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617), wherein it has been held that, if the provisions of the 'Act 28 of 2008' are not applicable, necessarily, the matter has to be considered in tune with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the competent authority is none other than the RDO or the District Collector. The circumstance under which the property came to be classified making the entry in the BTR, was with reference to the nature of the land at the time of effecting the entries in the BTR. By passage of time, substantial changes may have taken place, whereby the nearby properties also may have assumed the nature of reclaimed/garden land, with constructions and other developments/improvements.

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.

6. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered by the first respondent/competent authority in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench in Praveen's case. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to forward Ext.P4 representation to the first respondent forthwith, who shall consider the same under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the competent authority for further steps.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

lk