IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31204 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. V.V. PHILIP,CHOLODE, C.N.PURAM PO, PALAKKAD. 2. SOSAMMA PHILIP, W/O.V.V. PHILIP,DO. DO. 3. MOLLY PHILIP, D/O.V.V.PHILIP, DO. DO. 4. SHAJI PHILIP, S/O.V.V.PHILIP, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-1. 3. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, OPPOSITE TOWN RAILWAY STATION, PALAKKAD-1. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD II VILLAGE PALAKKAD- 678 572. 5. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD-1, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER R5 BY ADV. MR.T.C. SURESH MENON, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31204 of 2010 A ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are husband, wife and children. They together own 7.43 acres of land. According to them, the land is a dry land and there is cultivation in the land. However, in the village records, the land is shown as wet land. Petitioners are relying on Ext.P3 survey field register to support the plea that the land is a dry land. 2. According to the petitioners, in order to get the aforesaid village records corrected, he made Ext.P4 application and thereupon the second respondent sought report of the Village Officer about the nature of the land. It is stated that in pursuance to the above, the Village Officer submitted Ext.P6 report, with the details of the trees and the residential house that are available in the land. 3. Despite Ext.P6 report, orders were not passed on Ext.P4 and, therefore, petitioner approached this Court by WPC.31204/10 : 2 : filing W.P(C) No.12802/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing that orders be passed on Ext.P4. Accordingly, the second respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P8 order rejecting the application mainly on the ground that the Data Bank of paddy land and wet land to be prepared under Act 28 of 2008 is still not published and, therefore, it cannot be confirmed whether the land is a wet land. 4. In my view, even if the Data Bank is not prepared, if an application in the nature of Ext.P4 is received, the authorities are bound to consider the same, in the light of the materials available and obtained in any enquiry that may be held. In that view of the matter, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and, therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 in the light of the materials available. Such orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. WPC.31204/10 : 3 : 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge