The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the second respondent to receive the Basic tax and also to issue a possession certificate in respect of the property covered by Ext. P2, making the relevant entries in the concerned Columns of the Form in which it is to be issued.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained the property having an extent of 1.29 hectares of dry land comprised in Sy.Nos. 177/1,5, 2pt., 172/4 & 173/4pt (Re.Sy.No.319/3) in Puduppariyaram II Village, Palakkad Taluk and District, which is stated as classified as 'dry land' in the village records. It is stated that the property is neither a wet land nor a paddy land. Despite the factual position, as above, the request of the petitioner to issue the possession certificate showing it as a 'dry land' is not being acceded to, quite arbitrarily stating that the said land is a paddy land and hence the challenge.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who, on W.P.(C)No. 12588 OF 2013 2 the basis of the instruction received, submits that the property has been categorised as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register/Data Bank Register. The said submission is sought to be rebutted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that, if at all any such entry is there, it is a mistake, in view of Exts. P1 and P2 and further that the Data Bank register has not been published so far and that it remains to be in the draft stage. The learned Counsel further submits that after physical verification of the property, the nature of the property has been shown as 'dry land' in Ext.P1 Basic Tax Register and that there was no dispute or doubt for the respondents in any manner as to the nature and classification of the property of the petitioner; and it was accordingly that Ext.P2 possession certificate was issued by the second respondent clearly mentioning it as 'purayidam'. The learned Counsel also submits that the mistake, which was in existence earlier was sought to be corrected and it was corrected, which is discernible from the materials on record.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the course pursued by the second respondent, in refusing to accede W.P.(C)No. 12588 OF 2013 3 to the request of the petitioner, despite the entries in Exts.P1 and P2 as to the actual nature of the land, is not correct or sustainable. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to issue the possession certificate, as to the nature of the property, on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 and also to receive Basic Tax in respect of the property.
The writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk