Erroneous Classification of Land in Resurvey Cannot Force Landowner to Proceed Under Wetland Act | Kerala High Court Quashes Tahsildar’s Order
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that the erroneous classification of property as nilam in the Basic Tax Register following resurvey cannot compel a landowner to seek relief under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court quashed the Tahsildar’s rejection order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s application for correction in the Basic Tax Register within three months, after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the classification of land in Vakkom Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.
The petitioner, aged 42, had purchased 13.54 ares of property jointly with her mother through a registered sale deed in 2009. Mutation was effected in their joint names, and land tax was duly remitted. Subsequently, by way of a settlement deed executed in 2012, her mother’s share was transferred solely to her. Mutation was then effected exclusively in the petitioner’s name under T.P. No.17130 of the Village Office, Vakkom, as evidenced by the 2013 tax receipt.
Later, the resurvey of Vakkom Village was completed and records were handed over to the Village Office by the Tahsildar (Land Records). In the resurvey, the petitioner’s property was recorded as 6.35 ares in Re.Sy. No.136/5 and 6.30 ares in Re.Sy. No.136/4 of Block No.9, totaling 12.65 ares, assigned T.P. No.2366 of Vakkom Village. However, the classification of the land was changed from Purayidom to Nilam in the Basic Tax Register.
The petitioner pointed out that in the old settlement register of Sy.No.1889, the same land was recorded as Purayidom. She submitted that the Assistant Director of Resurvey had erroneously described the land as Nilam while forwarding records, which led to the wrongful entry in the Basic Tax Register.
On approaching the Tahsildar (Land Records) with a request to correct the error, her application was rejected through an order dated 30 May 2022, directing her instead to seek removal of the property from the Data Bank under the 2008 Act. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that her land had been mechanically included in the Data Bank without following statutory procedure. She argued that correction should be made under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, especially since no such misclassification existed in earlier registers.
Aggrieved by the rejection, she filed a petition under Section 13A of the 1961 Act before the District Collector. When no action followed, she approached the High Court through the present writ petition.
The Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit admitting receipt of the petitioner’s application and confirming that while the settlement register recorded the land as Purayidom, the resurvey had included it as Nilam. He maintained that since the land stood in the Data Bank, the petitioner should first seek removal under the 2008 Act before correction could be considered.
The Assistant Director of Resurvey also filed a counter affidavit, asserting that inspection of the resurvey records confirmed classification as wetland. He explained that the Basic Tax Register was accordingly updated. It was contended that when the resurvey records were exhibited under Section 9(2) of the 1961 Act, the petitioner had not raised any objection within the prescribed time.
The petitioner filed a reply affidavit reiterating that the entry was mechanical and highlighting that in similar cases, corrections had been allowed by the Tahsildar himself. She produced a 2021 proceeding where classification was rectified from Nilam to Purayidom for another landowner in the same village.
The case therefore centered on whether the correction of the Basic Tax Register, following resurvey, required recourse under the 2008 Act or whether the Tahsildar was duty-bound to address the petitioner’s grievance within the revenue framework itself.
Justice Viju Abraham examined the statutory framework and relevant government orders issued from 1965 onwards concerning resurvey, updating of records, and maintenance of revenue registers.
The Court observed: “Essentially, the above anomaly occurred after the resurvey was completed in Vakkom Village. As per Ext.P6 settlement register, the property is included as ‘purayidom’. But after the resurvey, changes were made, and Ext.P1 BTR was prepared, and the property has been included as ‘nilam’. The contention is that the said anomaly happened only due to the findings/entries made at the time of the resurvey, and the respondents are duty-bound to make necessary corrections in the basic tax register rather than relegating the petitioner to file an application under the Act, 2008, as done in Ext.P7 order.”
The Court examined Section 13A of the 1961 Act and stated: “A perusal of Section 13A of the Act, 1961, would clearly show that the revisional power granted to the District Collector is only to make necessary changes or cure the defects or mistakes in the resurvey in respect of the determination of the boundary alone. In the present case, there is no dispute as to any change in the extent of the land, etc., but the complaint is regarding the change of classification of the land after the resurvey as ‘nilam’.”
Justice Abraham further recorded: “Going by the said Government order, the resurvey was decided to be conducted not just for the survey of land but to make the land records up to date for the implementation of land reforms, collection of agricultural statistics for the improvement of agriculture and for effective revenue administration.”
The Court noted: “As per the above Government order, after getting the revised survey records from the concerned Assistant Directors, the Special Tahsildar could prepare the basic tax register, thandaper register and puramboke register, etc., for being utilised for the revenue administration by utilising the services of the village officers under them.”
It was also observed: “From the Government orders referred above, it is without any doubt that the resurvey authorities are entrusted not only to survey the land, to settle the boundary disputes, but also collect details regarding the nature of land, land/crops in the land in question and has to transfer the said details to the Revenue Administration so as to make necessary changes in the revenue records like the Basic Tax Register.”
The Court concluded: “Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ext P7 order is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly quashed.”
Justice Viju Abraham quashed the Tahsildar’s order dated 30 May 2022, which had directed the petitioner to seek relief under the 2008 Act. The Court issued a categorical direction to the Tahsildar (Land Records), stating that he must reconsider the petitioner’s request for correction of the land classification in the Basic Tax Register.
The judgment directed: “There will be a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the request made by the petitioner for change of nature of land in the revenue records and the 2nd respondent is duty bound to look into the matter and examine whether the details furnished by the survey authorities after the resurvey conducted is proper or not and to make necessary changes accordingly.”
It further mandated that: “Action in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.”
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri. Raj Carolin V., Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri. K.P. Jayachandran, Additional Advocate General; Smt. Nima Jacob, Government Pleader
Case Title: Jasmin v. The District Collector & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:64217
Case Number: WP(C) No. 27213 of 2022
Bench: Justice Viju Abraham
