(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P6 proceedings of the second respondent. The petitioner is the owner of 19.82 Ares of land in Perumbavoor Village, within the limits of the second respondent. The property has been leased out to M/s.SML Motors, to be used as a dump yard for vehicles. For the purpose of the above activity, according to the petitioner, a shed has been constructed in the property. Referring to Ext.P1 photograph it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the shed is constructed only as a temporary structure. It is the case of the petitioner that the said shed was constructed in the year 2008 and that as per the report of the Village Officer, the same is filled up land. However, Ext.P3 communication was issued by the second respondent alleging that the building in the property was constructed by utilising the paddy land in violation of the law. Ext.P3 was followed by Ext.P4 notice, though the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 objection, the same has been rejected by Ext.P6. The petitioner complains that an adjacent building has been already assessed to property tax as per Ext.P7.
(2.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, Exts.P4 and P6 are without any authority whatsoever. The report of the Village Officer, Ext.P2 shows that the property has been lying as filled up land years back. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the same is a paddy field, contends the petitioner. Hence, to allege that the petitioner had filled up the paddy field, is without any basis. The petitioner also relies on the decisions of this Court on this point.
(3.) HEARD . It is clear from Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer that, the property of the petitioner is remaining as a filled up land. Ext.P3 has been issued on the premise that the property has been described as paddy field in the Revenue Records. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala (2012(3) KLT 86), Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333) as well as other decisions on the point, it is not the description of a land in the title deed that is decisive, but the present condition of the land. Since Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer as well as Ext.P1 photograph show that at present, the property is a filled up land, it has to be held that Exts.P4 and P6 have no application.