AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in these cases have preferred an application before the Tahasildar(LR) for the purposes of effecting a change in the BTR as
regards the description of the land recorded therein. In the writ petitions, it is their contention that the predecessor in the interest of the land had
already obtained orders under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, permitting conversion of the land and hence, it was incumbent upon
the Tahasildar to take note of the said orders passed under Kerala Land Utilization Order and effect the consequential change in the description of the
land in the BTR.
I have heard Sri. Rinny Stephen Champarampil,the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and also Sri. Paul
Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for all the respondents in these writ petitions.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose these writ petitions by directing
the 1st respondent to consider the applications preferred by the petitioners for effecting a change in the description of the land in the BTR and pass
consequential orders thereon, based on the Kerala Land Utilization Orders produced by the petitioners, after verifying the identity of the land in
question. The 1st respondent shall pass orders effecting the classification change/ additional entry in the BTR, pertaining to the lands in question,
within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition
together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action.