E. K. KUNHAMMED KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P9 and P14 orders and for a consequential declaration that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P3 application is converted before 1967 and is eligible for necessary corrections in the revenue records. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner is a 71 year old senior citizen, holding 8.628 Ares of land in Resurvey No.5/19/907/1 in Kasaba Village of Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The said property is situated within 50 meters northwards of Mavoor road in the heart of the Kozhikode city, walkable distance from the Municipal Mofussil Bus Stand, Kozhikode. Petitioner obtained the said property through 5 registered land deeds, ie., Deed Nos.1040/92, 978/93, 1046/93, 530/94 and 974/94. The above mentioned property was converted much prior to 1967 and the said property is having buildings even prior to the year 1944. The property, about 21.31 cents of land, was erroneously and falsely included in the data bank of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation as paddy land, when such a data bank was prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as 'The Act 2008'). The 5threspondent called for a report from the 4threspondent to verify the lie and nature of the property as on 4/7/1967 and 12/8/2008. The report of the 4threspondent was sought for the purpose of ensuring whether the property is a paddy land or wet land as per the satellite data. Ext.P1 report was submitted by the 4th respondent before the Agricultural Field Office, Kozhikode specifically pointing out that the property of the petitioner was converted prior to 1967 and the plot was observed predominantly under plantation/mixed vegetation and building/structure in north-east side of the property and the same trend of landuse practices were continued till 2011 and 2014. It was specifically observed by the 4threspondent that, in 1967 data, the plots were observed under settlement. The 5thRespondent considered Ext.P1 report and made a specific observation that the property of the petitioner was a settlement even before 1967 and there were plantations and buildings from the year 2007. On the above said conclusion and based on the site visit, the 5thRespondent issued Ext.P2 order removing the said survey number from the data bank. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application before the 3rdrespondent for the purpose of correcting the revenue records to the effect that the property of the petitioner does not come within the purview of 'Nilam' in the revenue records. As per the provisions of the Act, 2008, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 application in Form No.9 under Rule 12(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008. A copy of the Deed Nos.1362/1945, 498/1946, 183/1947 and 309/1952 were also produced along with Ext. P3 application. The property deed would show that the nature of the property is 'plantation / garden land' even in 1941 and it contains building and had 'kudiyirippu' rights over such building. Ext.P4 is the photocopy of one of the deeds, registered as deed No.1362 of 1945. The petitioner submits that other deeds are not produced before this Court as most of them are in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4(a), copy of relevant pages of the Property Tax Assessment Register, obtained from the Records Division of the Kozhikode Corporation along with Ext.P3 application which shows that the property tax was levied from the said land and a building which was situated in Survey No.19/930 and 930 in Serial No.1078 and 1078(a) in Ward No.5 of Kozhikode Corporation. The petitioner further submits that document No.257/41 (produced before the 3rdrespondent later as is seen from Ext.P8) would clearly show that there were plantations and buildings in the property. The property had 'kaanam kudiyirippu' rights in 1941, and it can only be on a building. "Kuzhikoor"

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is specifically stated that the provisions under Sec. 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, will apply only in respect of the lands which are filled up or naturally filled up before the 4thday of July, 1967, ie., the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is the specific contention raised in the counter affidavit that the records reveal that the property of the petitioner has not been converted even as on date. The petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his contentions. The counter affidavit further states that the document enumerated in Rule 12(13) can be pressed into service only if the property is shown to have been converted prior to 4/7/1967. When the property is still lying without any reclamation or conversion, these documents cannot be taken into account.