THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINGOLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN Vs. ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.MAITHEENKUTTY, ULLASAM, CHINGOLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review is by the State. The issue relating to the correction of the data bank. The total extent of land is 0.93 Ares (2.25 cents). The Local Level Monitoring Committee refused to correct the entry in the data bank. This was challenged in the writ petition. This court relying upon the Agricultural Officer's Report produced as Ext.P4 and Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer found that the land cannot be treated as paddy in the data bank. It is to be noted that the report clearly indicates that land remains uncultivated for more than 20 years and there are two trees in the land. It is further noted by this court from the report of the Agricultural Officer that non-consideration of the request of the petitioner to correct the entry was on an assumption that they have only power to allow reclamation of the land for the purpose of constructing a residential building and do not have the power to correct the data bank. Therefore, this court found land cannot be classified as paddy and entry relating to the property has to be corrected.

(2.) It is to be noted that under law, Local Level Monitoring Committee alone has the power to correct the entry relating to the data bank. It is also stated that all the description of the revenue records would show that the land in question is recorded as nilam. This court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to carryout correction by taking note of the nature of land as referred in Ext.P4 report of the Agricultural Officer as well as the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannoor. In both, it categorically stated that the land is unfit for paddy cultivation. Assuming that the petitioner made an attempt to reclaim the land in the year 2011, it cannot have a bearing, if the land cannot be treated as paddy land prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. Mere inclusion of the land in the data bank itself will not prove that the land is a paddy land unless it is shown that the land remained as paddy land at the time of enactment of Act 28 of 008. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.