JAMEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the co -owner of the properties having an extent of 9 Ares 31 square metre in Re.Sy. No. 7/19, old Sy. No. 165/5 and 170 of Eranellur Village and 1 Are 42 square metre in Re.Sy. No. 7/11, old Sy. No. 169/1 and 18 Are 17 square metre in Re.Sy. No. 7/12 old Sy. No. 170 totaling to 29 Ares 43 square metre 73 cents covered by Ext. P1 title deed. It is not a paddy land or wet land coming within the purview of Act 28/2008. The said factum is sought to be established with reference to Ext. P2 series photographs and Ext. P3 final Data Bank Register, wherein the petitioner's property is not included as 'paddy land'. It was in the said circumstance, that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 16547/2013 seeking for correction in the 'BTR', which was disposed of as per Ext. P4 judgment dated 14.08.2013.

(2.) WITHOUT considering the grievance in a proper manner, the petitioner's request was rejected as per Ext. P5 order dated 11.11.2013 by the 3rd respondent. This made the petitioner to approach this Court again, by filing WP(C) No. 30447/2013. The said case was disposed of as per Ext. P6 judgment dated 17.12.2013 after settling aside the impugned order and directing the District Collector to reconsider the matter in the light of the law declared by this Court in Praveen V. Land Revenue Commissioner : (2010 (2) KLT 617) giving other appropriate directions ie, to have the application preferred by the petitioner for considering the prayer of the petitioner to permit him to make use of the property for other purpose than agricultural purpose, in terms of Clause 6 of the KLU Order. Pursuant to the said verdict, Ext. P7 order was passed by the District Collector on 06.06.2014 declining to grant the relief. This in turn was subjected to challenge by filing WP(C) No. 28537/2014. A specific observation was made by this Court in paragraph 2 of the verdict that, it was a fit case for granting permission under Clause 6 of the KLU Order and accordingly, the District Collector was directed to finalise the proceedings within the specified time. The impugned order passed by the District Collector was set aside, so as to facilitate such exercise. A fresh application was filed by the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P9, before the District Collector under Clause 6(2) of the KLU as directed in Ext. P8 judgment. The same was considered and the District Collector rejected the same again, as per Ext. P10 order dated 07.01.2015. Correctness and sustainability of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition, placing reliance on the verdicts already passed by this Court at different points of time, including Exts. P11 & P12.

(3.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the physical nature of the property concerned; particularly that it is not a paddy land or wetland as defined under Section 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the Act 28/2008 and that the same is not included in the Data Bank Register. The rights and liberties of the parties, to have correction in the BTR, has now become final by virtue of the declaration of the law as per the decision of the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer V. Jalaja Dileep : [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)] to the effect that, classification cannot be changed in the BTR. But some specific observations have been made by the Apex Court as to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned in respect of the properties which were converted prior to the commencement of the Act. The observations as contained in paragraph 17 & 21 are in the following terms.