SHERRY PETER Vs. REVENUE DEIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner makes a limited plea that his representation, namely Ext.P5, preferred before the 1 st respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), Muvattupuzha, be directed to be taken up and disposed of.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was constrained to prefer Ext.P5 before the RDO in reply to Ext.P3 notice earlier issued by the said Authority. He asserts that the property mentioned in Ext.P3, on which he is making a construction is described as a 'garden land' even in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Records and it is not included as a 'paddy land' in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ('the Paddy Land Act' for short).

(3.) The petitioner says that he has made the constructions only in the area which is described as a 'purayidam' in the Revenue Records and the Data Bank and therefore, that Ext.P3, with respect to such properties, is not tenable. He says that he has explained all these in Ext.P5 and prays that the RDO be directed to consider the same at the earliest.