In this review petition, the State challenged the writ court's order directing correction of a data bank entry that misclassified land as paddy. This court upheld the lower court by finding the land unfit for cultivation and lacked the power to correct the entry for paddy classification, dismissing the review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RP.No. 995 of 2016 (I)
WP(C) 4889/2016, DATED 01-03-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINGOLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 532.
2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/CHAIRMAN, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHINGOLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 532.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA-689 121.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.I.SAJEEV
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
ABDUL AZIZ,
S/O.MAITHEENKUTTY, ULLASAM, CHINGOLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-690 532.
BY SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
RP.No. 995 of 2016 (I) ----------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ---------------------ANNEXURE P1(A): COPY OF SALE DEED NO.886/2014 OF CHEPPAD SRO AND THE ENDORSEMENTS IN THE VILLAGE OFFICE ANNEXURE P1(B): COPY OF THE THANDAPER EXTRACT NO.17116 OF CHINGOLY VILLAGE ANNEXURE P1(C): COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT.29/8/11 ANNEXURE P1(D): COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT.24/12/11 ANNEXURE P1(E): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.C3-25394/14 DATED 25/4/16. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE --------------------NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Review Petition No.995 of 2016 in
W.P.(C)No.4889 of 2016
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of December, 2016
JUDGMENT
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
Review Petition No.995 of 2016 in W.P.(C)No.4889 of 2016
-:2:-
be corrected.
sd/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
jm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Local Level Monitoring Committee had the power to correct the entry in the data bank regarding the classification of the land from nilam to paddy.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to correct the data bank entry given the land is unfit for paddy cultivation and has been uncultivated for over 20 years.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINGOLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
ABDUL AZIZ
A.MUHAMMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
