The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having an extent of 10.50 cents comprised in Block No.20 and Survey No.256/5, 256/6 of Vengola Village. The petitioner claims that the above property is a dry land. 2. The petitioner submits that this property is classified as nilam in the basic tax register and further submits that this property is a converted land and lying as a puayidam. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to correct the prescription of the property in the basic tax register.
3. In this matter, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the land comprised in Survey No. 250/5/6 having an extent of 10.5 Ares of Block 20 of Vengola Village is recorded as a nilam in the draft data bank. It is further submitted that the land appears to have been unauthorisedly converted.
4. The petitioner' s case is that this property is converted long before Act 28/2008 and it cannot be classified as a nilam in the draft data bank. If the petitioner's case is that the property is erroneously classified as nilam in the draft bank, the petitioner's remedy is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct the details in the draft data bank.
4. In view of the fact that the property is included in the draft data bank, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct or remove the property from the draft data bank in terms of Rule 4 (2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and wet Land Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). On receipt of any request from the petitioner, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall conduct inspection to find out the actual state of affairs which existed as on the date when the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,2008 came into force. The Local Level Monitoring Committee shall do needful to inspect the property. The petitioner also should be given an opportunity of hearing before a final decision is taken in the matter. The Local Level Monitoring Committee shall finalize the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of an application from the petitioner in terms of Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. This shall be done in the light of the judgement of this Court in Castlerock
Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Revenue
Divisional Officer (2013 (3) KLT 545).
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge