SARITHA SOMAN AGED 38, W/O. SAJI, RESIDING AT ANTHIKKADU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPUZHA P.O. Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 34864 of 2015 challenging the judgment dated 25.02.2016 rendered therein by the learned single Judge. The Writ Petition was filed being aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondents whereby the entry regarding nature of the land as noted in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) in respect of petitioner's property was corrected as Nilam , in the place of converted land.

(2.) According to the petitioner an extent of 22.01 Ares of land in Sy.No. 185/8 of Eloor Village which belongs to him as per document No. 1578 of 2010 of the SRO, Alangad was lying as a converted land even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) (for short, the 2008 Act ). Since the nature of the land was noted in the BTR as Nilam , petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 5756 of 2012 wherein Ext.P1 judgment was rendered permitting the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar to correct the entry in the BTR as converted land in the place of Nilam . The said Judgment was rendered essentially relying upon the judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012 [3] KLT 333). Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the Additional Tahsildar, Paravur passed Ext.P3 order dated 12.03.2013 according sanction to effect change in the classification of the land in question as Nikathu Purayidom (converted land) in the place of Nilam . However, the judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (supra) was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court as per the judgment reported in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others Vs. Jalaja Dileep and Another (2015 [2] KHC 109 (SC). Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed that the correction made in the BTR regarding the nature of the land pursuant to Ext.P1 Judgment in W.P(C) No. 5756 of 2012 be cancelled. Accordingly, the correction effected in the BTR with regard to the nature of the land from Nilam to converted land was cancelled and it was reverted as Nilam ". The petitioner is aggrieved by the said course of action adopted by the respondents.

(3.) The Learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment upheld the corrections made by the Tahsildar in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others Vs. Jalaja Dileep and Another (supra). The challenge against the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer was negatived. However, the learned single Judge proceeded to grant substantive relief in favour of the petitioner, directing the District Collector that if the petitioner approaches him with an application under Sec. 3A of the 2008 Act, the District Collector shall grant permission within a period of one month on payment of the requisite fee as stipulated in the said section.