ANNAMMA SEBASTIAN Vs. THE KANAKKARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner of 10 cents of land which she purchased by document No. 1082/83 of the Kuravilangad Sub Registry. That property is situated on the eastern side of the Ettumanoor Vaikom Road. She wanted to construct a commercial building in the property and made Ext.P4 application to the Secretary for permit. That was rejected by Ext.P5 reply stating that it was impermissible to permit such construction in reclaimed paddy lands. It appears that the petitioner made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala and on his directions, the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer made Exts.P6 ad P7 reports. In Ext.P6 report, the Village Officer has stated that the land is unsuitable for any long term or short term farming and that there is no water source also. In Ext.P7, the Agricultural Officer has also stated that the neighbouring lands are all developed and constructions have been made. Finally the RDO also confirmed the findings in Exts.P6 and P7. However, in Ext.P8 order, he stated that since the property has been described as paddy land in the revenue records, he is unable to allow conversion and permit construction. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash Exts.P5 and P8 and to direct the Panchayat to pass orders on the application made by the petitioner. There is also a prayer to direct respondents 3 and 4 to reclassify the land as reclaimed purayidam (dry land). On the other hand, in the affidavit filed by the Panchayat, they are placing reliance on Exts. R1(a) and R1(b) circulars issued by the Local Self Government Department placing restriction on construction in reclaimed paddy lands.

(2.) AS already seen, the case of the petitioner is that though the land in question has been described in the revenue records as paddy land, the land is a fully developed dry land and therefore the description itself is wrong. Although the authorities including the Village Officer, Agricultural Officer and the RDO have accepted the correctness of this contention, they have expressed their helplessness to reclassify the land on the ground that there is no provision enabling them to do so. This very question was considered by this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer and others (ILR 2012 (3) Ker. 601), where it has been held that in view of Section 6 of the Land Tax Act, the Tahsildar is competent to correct the classification of the land in Basic Tax Register. Therefore, in view of Exts.P6, P7 and P8, 3rd respondent is directed to reclassify the land in the Basic Tax Register and corresponding entries shall also be made in the revenue records having regard to the true state of affairs to be ascertained on inspection of the land. Orders in this behalf shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks from today on production of a copy of this judgment. Once order is passed as above, the Panchayat will pass fresh orders on the petitioner's application for building permit treating the nature of the land as classified by the Tahsildar. Such orders shall also be passed without any delay in the matter.