SALIM C.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased an extent of 14.997 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 107/1-1-2 in Block No. 23 of Marampally Village on 19.7.2012, as per sale deed registered as document No. 4163/2012 in Perumbavoor SRO. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the said property in 1977, when the property was situated in the then Vazhakkulam Village. Pursuant to a bifurcation of Vazhakkulam Village as Vazhakkulam and Marampally Villages, a re-survey was conducted, and fresh survey numbers allotted. At the time of re-survey, however, the description of the property was shown as 'Nilam' in the Village and Re-survey records. The same description was mentioned in the draft data bank prepared for the area as well. Although the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners preferred an application seeking correction of the entry in the revenue records as well as the draft data bank, no effective steps were taken by the respondents towards that end.

(2.) On the petitioners purchasing the property, they preferred an application [Ext.P10] before the 2nd respondent, for correcting the description of the property in the revenue records. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P11 order dated 14.2016, advised the petitioners to prefer an application under Sec. 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008, [hereinafter referred to as the "2008 Act"] so that the same could be considered after finalisation of the data bank. The petitioners impugned Ext.P11 order through W.P.(C). No. 20490/2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners submitted Ext.P12 application before the 4th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee. The writ petition was thereafter disposed by Ext.P13 judgment, with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioners, after conducting a site inspection, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the said judgment, the 4th respondent drew up a report, which was communicated to the petitioners as Ext.P16. In Ext.P16 report, the 4th respondent suggests that the property belonging to the petitioners was wrongly included in the draft data bank as 'Nilam'. It is indicated that, there is an old double storied building, and trees that are more than 20 years old standing on the property. The report shows the property as bounded by residential houses on three sides, and the Perumbavoor Aluva transport road on the northern side. In the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in taking steps to correct the entry in the data bank, by declaring that the property in question is not 'Nilam'.

(3.) I have heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.