FARHANA KATHEEF Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent wherein the Form 9 application under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2008") for change of nature of unnotified land was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: It is averred that the petitioner obtained an extent of 27.52 Ares of property in survey No.289/1 of Lokamaleswaram Village by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed No.3734 of 2008. It is further contended that the property covered by Ext.P1 was originally obtained by one Padmaja as per Ext.P3 partition deed No.1450 of 1961. Petitioner would submit that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) of the Kodungallur Municipality has prepared the data bank with respect to paddy land situated within the limits of Kodungallur Municipality, and in Ext.P6, the petitioner's property, comprised in survey No.289/1, was not included. But the property of the petitioner is recorded as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and in the revenue records, as evident from Ext.P2 land tax receipt. Therefore, it is contended that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 in survey No.289/1 of Lokamaleswaram Village is an unnotified land. Petitioner submits that as per Sec. 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 2008"), if the property is converted before 4/7/1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the holder of the property is not required to pay any fees for the change of nature of the property in the revenue records and going by Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008, an application in this regard shall be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer in Form 9 and therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 application in Form 9. On receipt of Ext.P7 application, the 1st respondent forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent Village Officer for report. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent inspected the property and verified all the prior title deeds and found that Ext.P7 application deserved to be allowed and sent Ext.P8 report along with the mahazar to the 1st respondent. Without properly considering Ext.P8 report and the contentions of the petitioner, Ext.P7 application has been rejected as per Ext.P10 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader based on the counter affidavit filed has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, stating that a statutory appeal is provided against Ext.P10 order and without availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, the petitioner shall be relegated to approach the appellate forum, challenging Ext.P10.