IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15670 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.L.RAPHEL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LAZAR, ATHIYUNTHEN HOUSE, ERAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN 688001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15670 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : GAZETTE NOTIFICATION EXHIBIT P2 : APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 : ORDER DATED 25/10/2010 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.190. EXHIBIT P5 : GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P6 : CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ARIMBUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P7 : REPRESENTATION DATED 9/12/2010. EXHIBIT P8 : ORDER DATED 22/2/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.5536 of 2011. EXHIBIT P9 : ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 : CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15670 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June 2011 JUDGMENT The basic issue involved in this case is with regard to the dispute, which arose in connection with the fixation of 'fair value' of the land in question. Originally, the land value was fixed as Rs.2 lakhs per Are, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent culminating in Ext.P3. As per the said order, the 1st respondent reduced the 'fair value' based on the report submitted by the subordinate authorities and on satisfaction of the factual position; thus reducing Rs.2 lakhs per Are to Rs.55,000/- per Are. But while passing such order, the 1st respondent made an observation that the property, though stated as a 'reclaimed land' remained to be shown in the revenue records as 'wet land'. 2. Eventhough the immediate relief sought for by the petitioner with regard to the 'fair value' stands redressed, the observation made by the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 is still a 'heart burn' to the petitioner, in so far as the land has been wrongly categorized as a 'wet land'. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.5536/2011 leading to Ext.P8 judgment, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to consider the representation filed by W.P.(C) No.15670/2011 2 the petitioner seeking for rectifying the defect/mistake as to the classification of land as 'wet land'. 3. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent, who passed Ext.P9 order on 27-05-2011 stating that the property, though as per the records submitted by the concerned authorities appeared to be 'reclaimed land', as per the settlement register, it was shown as 'wet land'. Since the norms prescribed by the Government as per classification of the land did not include any such category referable as 'reclaimed land', the reference made in Ext.P3 as 'wet land', based on the revenue records was held as not liable to be intercepted, which is under challenge. 4. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the actual nature of the property; to the effect that the same no longer continues to be a 'wet land', but a reclaimed land'. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the observation of the 1st respondent is allowed to stand as in Ext.P3, it is likely to affect the beneficial enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. This Court finds that there need not be any such W.P.(C) No.15670/2011 3 apprehension in view of the admitted facts and figures as referred to by the 1st respondent himself in Ext.P3. That apart, the issue is covered as per the position of law declared in “Shahanaz Shukhoor v Chellannur Grama Panchayat” (2009(3) KLT 899). 7. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to enjoy the property as it is, despite the adverse entries in the revenue records. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE