R.AMALU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to effect mutation of 9.6 Ares of land in Vettikkavala Vilalge in Kottarakkara Taluk.

(2.) IT is averred in the writ petition that the property is remaining as nilam. It is mentioned in Ext.P1 sale deed. In the parent document, by which the 4th respondent purchased it, the property was described as nilam and mutation was effected in the name of the previous owner, 4th respondent.

(3.) IN the statement filed by the 2nd respondent it is pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed two orders invoking the powers under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act directing the 4th respondent to restore the paddy land. Ext.R2(a) and R2(b) are copies of the orders. It is stated that these two orders have been issued as there was a confusion regarding the date of reclamation of the land.