MUHAMMAD IKBAAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of the land having an extent of 240.43 Ares situated in Perumbavoor village. The petitioner was enjoying the property also satisfying the tax. The property, according to the petitioner, is a garden land. But the property has been described as 'nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and included in the draft data bank register; copy of which has been produced as Ext. P1. Though the petitioner has moved District Collector under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, the same did not yield any positive result, referring to entry in the data bank register. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Ext. P2 representation before the 2nd respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee to cause correction in the Data Bank Register, which is still to be considered. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) THE basic question whether the BTR could be caused to be corrected had come up for consideration of this Court and as per the decision reported in : 2014 (1) KLT 161 [Revenue Divisional Officer VS. Jalaja Dileep], a positive direction was given by a Division Bench of this Court to have the entry corrected with reference to the physical nature of the property. But now the Apex Court, as per the decision reported in : 2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC) [Revenue Divisional Officer VS. Jalaja Dileep], has held that BTR cannot be corrected and thus overruled the decision in : 2014 (1) KLT 161. It has however been made clear that in respect of the property which was converted before the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008, the matter could be caused to be considered by the District Collector under the relevant provisions of the KLU order.