REJI SEBASTIAN S/O E J SEBASTIAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER; VILLAGE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P18 order by which the application submitted by the Petitioner for reclassification of his properties has been rejected, based on a report of the Principal Agricultural Officer.

(2.) The total extent owned by the Petitioner is 3.33 acres of land in various survey numbers in Aluva Village and true copies of the sale deeds have been produced as Exts.P1 to P2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the above land was purchased for residential and other constructional purposes. All the nearby lands and his properties are dry lands which are remaining barren for a long period. But, in the revenue records, the description is made as 'nilam' itself. This prompted the Petitioner to file an application as per Ext.P3 before the District Collector to change the description of the property in the revenue records and the District Collector forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary action and, subsequent enquiries followed, including local inspection by various officers and Revenue Divisional Officer to the site. Ext.P4 is the copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer which shows that the property in question is developed dry land and the nearby properties are developed lands with buildings therein. The report further shows that the entire area is covered by grass and other wild growth, and no paddy lands are there in the nearby localities and many of the nearby properties have been converted as building sites and buildings have been constructed also. It was also observed that based on the reports of the Panchayat and other Officers, the application can be considered. Ext.P5 is the copy of the resolution taken by the Panchayat in the matter. A reading of Ext.P5, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, will show that the same favours the case of the Petitioner as they were convinced that the property is lying as a dry land. Ext.P6 series are the no objections submitted by the nearby owners testifying that the land including theirs are lying as dry land. Ext.P7 is the report of the Village Officer which also certifies that the property is not lying as a paddy land and there is no cultivation there for a number of years; a major part of the same has been reclaimed and there is wild growth, grass etc. therein. There is a road leading to the plots. The Additional Tahsildar also by Ext.P8 confirmed the same. Ext.P9 is the letter from the Padashekhara Samithi who have also certified that it is not suitable for paddycultivation and they have no objection in changing the classification. In the notification issued by the Government as per Ext.P11, fixing fair value of the land, the classification is given as residential plot with Corporation/Municipality/Panchayat road access in respect of the both items of properties.

(3.) Evidently, Ext.P18 order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer only by referring to Ext.P10 report made by the Agricultural Officer. A reading of the report of the Principal Agricultural Officer also shows that the property is not cultivated with paddy and, for nearly 5 years it has been lying as a barren land. His opinion is mainly that if waterways are dug up for bringing water to the property in question, paddy can be cultivated. The nearby properties are not being cultivated with paddy but may be suitable for cultivation.