PHILOMINA JOSEPH Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the present owner of 23.30 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.486/4 A1 and 486/4 B1 of Edathua Village. The properties are classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The properties were settled in favour of the petitioner by her husband as per settlement deed No.990/2006 dtd. 4/5/2006. The properties had devolved on the petitioner's husband as per gift deed No.2117/1957 dtd. 12/10/1957 executed by her husband's grandfather. The gift deed describes the property as a 'purayidam' as early as in 1957 and also shows that there is a building in the land.

(2.) The wrong entry in the BTR as 'Nilam' also continued in the notified data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee of Edathua Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the properties had been converted irreversibly even before 100 years. In order to correct the wrong entry, the petitioner submitted an application in Form No.5 before the 1st respondent on 2/3/2020. The application in Form No.9 was also submitted since lands had been converted before 1967. When action was not forthcoming, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3618/2021, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the authorities to consider and pass orders on the applications in Form Nos.5 and 9 submitted by the petitioner. When action was not being taken even after the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case No.1088/2021. By Ext.P3 order dtd. 3/8/2021, the 1st respondent allowed Form No.5 application and deleted 22.475 Ares of land from the data bank of Edathua Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, the 1st respondent allowed Form No.9 application as per Ext.P4 order dtd. 10/9/2021, imposing certain conditions. The Contempt Case was closed as per Ext.P5 judgment with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the conditions imposed in Ext.P4 order. This writ petition is filed challenging the conditions thus imposed.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the direction contained in Ext.P4 to correct the revenue records classifying the property as "[xxx xxx xxx]" is against Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Rules, 2008 (the Rules for short). It is also contended that the condition in Ext.P4 that if a building more than 3000 sq.ft. area is constructed, the petitioner has to pay Rs.100.00 per sq.ft. is also not warranted in the light of the proviso to Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act for short).