Seenath vs Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Thrissur

C.S.Dias, J

The petitioner is the owner of 11.13 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.580/3 of Thanniyam Village covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed.

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the above-said property is described as 'paddy land' in the revenue records. It is also shown as

'converted land' in Ext.P3 Data Bank. According to the petitioner, the above property is lying as dry land and is wrongly classified as 'paddy land' in

the revenue records. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 application before the 1st  respondent seeking change of category of the above

land. However, there is inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in considering and disposing of Ext.P4 application. Hence the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 application before the 1st respondent as early as on 04.03.2021, I direct the 1st

respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three

months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.