Petitioner is the owner of 25 cents of property covered by Ext. P1 sale deed of SRO, Devikulam. The case of the petitioner is that though there is no paddy cultivation for the past 30 years, the nature of the property is described as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. It is stated that the actual nature of the property is discernible from Ext.P3 photograph. Because of wrong inclusion in the Data Bank Register, the petitioner approached the second respondent, who is the convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the second respondent submitted Ext.P4 report to the effect that the property is not a wet land(Nilam) and that it is cultivated with cash crops. Ext.P9 copy of the Data Bank Register produced along with I.A.No.14306 of 2013, pertaining to Block No.7 of Vellathooval Village shows that the petitioner's property is not included in the Data Bank Register and that it is not a paddy land. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P5 application before the third respondent/Tahsildar for correcting the entry in the Basic Tax Registrar with regard to the nature of the property, pursuant to W.P.(C)No. 25702 OF 2013 2 which, Ext.P6 report from the first respondent/Village Officer and Ext.P7 report from Taluk Surveyor were obtained by the third respondent. According to the petitioner both the reports are in favour of the petitioner that the property is a 'purayidom. The delay in finalising the proceedings made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. 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 W.P.(C)No. 25702 OF 2013 3
617) and the competent authority to deal with the issue is District Collector, who has been impleaded in the party array as per the order in I.A.No.14306 of 2013.
4. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to approach the Addl.5th respondent/District Collector by filing a petition under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the property for other purposes than agricultural purposes within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised at the earliest , at any rate, within two months thereafter, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Addl.5th respondent/District Collector for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk