RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection for the petitioner to fill up her land namely 30.10 ares of property comprised in survey No.401/4 of Thazhuthala Village, Kollam District covered by Ext.P2 sale deed as against the second respondent and her men.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction commanding the first respondent to take appropriate action upon Ext.P4 petition submitted by the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this honourable Court.
2. The petitioner seeks to approach this court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in the matter of rendering police protection to fill up the petitioner's land. The case of the petitioner is that the property having an extent of 30.10 Ares comprised in Survey No.401/4 of Thazhuthala Village in Kollam District covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is actually a dry land and the W.P.(C)No.30260 OF 2012 : 2 :
petitioner is enjoying the said property. Ext.P2 is the land tax receipt issued by the Village Officer, Thazhuthala evidencing payment of land tax for the year 2011-2012. Petitioner submitted an application on 14.2.2012 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam seeking permission for filling up her land. By Ext.P3, the Revenue Divisional Officer informed the petitioner that there was no need of any permission for filling up the petitioner's land, since the land in question was a 'purayidom'. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent has no authority to interfere with the filling up of the landed property belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 petition before the first respondent seeking for police protection, in view of forceful obstruction.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, also producing some documents, particularly, the Gazette Notification dated, 14.12.2009 as R2(a) and photographs as R2(b), along with a mass representation as R2(c). The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the property shown in R2(a) notification includes the petitioner's property as well, which is described as a wet land. During the pendency of the writ petition, direction was given by this Court to W.P.(C)No.30260 OF 2012 : 3 :
the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer to file a report as to the factual aspects. Pursuant to the said direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam has filed an affidavit dated 03.04.2014 stating that, it was only a mistake on the part of the revenue authorities, whereby the property belonging to the petitioner happened to be shown as wet land in R2(a) notification (with regard to fixation of fair value) and that steps have been taken to re-notify the correct classification of land in the fair value register, as 'dry land'. The relevant portion as contained in paragraph 4 and the unnumbered paragraph thereunder are in the following terms:
“4. It is submitted that Basic Tax Register of a village is the master record of the land. The actual classification of land is as shown in the Basic Tax Register. However, in the Fair Value Notification, it has been noticed that several material errors such as wrong classification, improper value, printing errors etc. are being occurred. When noticing such errors if any application/appeal from the land owners, are received additional notifications are published under Section 28A if Stamp Act.
It is submitted that in this case the land in question is a dry land however in the classification of land in respect of Resurvey No.401/4 is wrongly published as wet land in the Fair Value Notification. Necessary arrangements have been initiated by my office to re-notify the correct classification of land in the Fair Value Register as dry land (residential plot).
4. Heard learned Government Pleader as well.
W.P.(C)No.30260 OF 2012 : 4 :
5. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the property belonging to the petitioner is actually a 'dry land' and it does not form 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Section 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008. This being the position, the grievance of the petitioner is liable to be redressed. If there is any threat to the law and order situation, the same shall be immediately looked into and necessary steps shall be taken by the first respondent to see that law and order is maintained.
Writ petition is disposed of.
MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge