The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondent No.3 to consider Ext.P3 representation on the basis of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Jalaja Dileep vs. Revenue Divisional Officer 2012 (3) KLT 333, Shahanaz Shukkoor vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899, (2) Praveen vs.Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] (3), Jaffarkhan vs. Kochumarakkar [2012 (1) KLT 491 (4), Mohammed Abdul Basheer vs. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86 and make appropriate corrections in the Basic Tax Register correcting the category of the petitioner's plot as dry land(Purayidom).
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to issue fresh possession certificate on the basis of the correction made in the Basic Tax Register so as to enable the petitioner to consider his plot as dry land (purayidom).
iii. To declare that an extent of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.69/72 of Manjeri Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram district described in registered document No.3371/2007 Manjeri Sub Registry is not suitable for paddy cultivation and be treated as dry land; And
iv. issue any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice under the given facts and circumstances, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.69/72 of Manjeri Village. It is the case of the petitioner that though the property is actually a 'dry land' as revealed from Ext.P1 photograph and that it has been described as 'commercially important plot' in Ext.P2 Fair Value Notification, the nature of the property is shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. In the said circumstance, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the third respondent/Tahsildar for necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register. But it is refused to be acted upon.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed that the property in question has already been included as 'paddy land' in the Draft Data Bank register prepared under the Act 28 of 2008
4. The legal position has been made clear by this Court as per the decision in Jafarkhan vs.Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT 491), whereby it has been held that if the property was not lying as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008 as on the date of commencement of the said Act, it does not have any application at all. Under such circumstance, the claim of the petitioner , if at all any, to permit him to make use of the property for other purposes than agricultural purpose is liable to be entertained in the light of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , which is the law declared by this Court as per the decision in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617).
Similarly, it is settled law that, if the property came to be wrongly included in the Data Bank Register, it is for the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider and take remedial measures for causing the same item to be deleted by way of appropriate steps.
5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 07.10.2013, the petitioner was directed to implead the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committee in the party array. Pursuant to this, I.A.No.13940 of 2013 has been filed for impleading the concerned Local Level Monitoring committee in the party array, which stands allowed today. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be caused to be considered by the Addl.5threspondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee for deleting the entry with regard to the nature of the property from the Data Bank Register.
6. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the additional 5th respondent by filing necessary application within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed after conducting a site inspection with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk