T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether, for effecting mutation the description of the property has to be changed by executing a rectification deed. The petitioner purchased by Exts.P1 and P1(a), 18 cents and 1 acre 73 cents of properties in Sy. Nos.195/16/2, 195/11, 195/5 and 195/6 with two old buildings numbered as X/209 and X/210 in Thodupuzha Village. Stamp duty was remitted as per the fair value fixed by the Government, wherein the property is classified as a commercially important one. In the registered deed, the description of the property is given as 'purayidam' instead of 'nilam' as stated in the old Basic Tax Register. It is averred that when the application for effecting mutation was submitted, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and found that the properties are commercial and not agricultural and submitted a report accordingly and thereafter the District Collector conducted a further enquiry through the Deputy Tahsildar who also submitted a report describing that the properties of the petitioner are not agricultural properties and have been lying as a barren land. Ext.P2 is the copy of the report. The petitioner has produced Exts.P3 to P3(c) photographs of the property to show its nature. Thereafter, for verifying the present situation of the land as per the request of the petitioner, the Agricultural Field Officer attached to Thodupuzha Municipality inspected the property and prepared a report, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P4. In the said report, the nature of the properties has again been confirmed, as barren land. But, finally by Ext.P5 the petitioner was directed to execute a rectification deed to change the description in the registered sale deeds, of some of the items as 'nilam', so as to be in tune with the village records.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the description of the properties in the documents Exts.P1 and P1(a) tallies with the true nature and the ground realities. Therefore, the description in the sale deeds does not suffer from any infirmity. A rectification deed is being executed for rectifying any error, whereas no such error is in existence herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that actually the B.T.R. has to be corrected by changing the classification as 'purayidam', especially in the light of the principles stated by this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012 (3) KLT 333). Learned counsel also submitted that various decisions of this Court under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act also have emphasised the fact that the actual fact situation is important.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, in para 2 it is stated that in the Fair Value Register, the property is classified as commercially important property and stamp duty was paid as per the fair value fixed by the Government. The further plea raised is that for a document to be valid in effect, it should bear the details corresponding to revenue records and the present nature of the property has no relevance for effecting mutation. It is also stated that the classification of the land as commercially important in the Fair Value Register is not a ground for effecting mutation in the village records. The Revenue Divisional Officer referred the matter to the District Collector for opinion in the light of the fact that in the Village records, certain items of properties are classified as 'nilam'.

5. As regards the real nature of the property, it can be seen from Ext.P2 report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar dated 27.9.2011 submitted to the District Collector that in the Fair Value Register the classification is shown as commercially important plots. There is a two storied building in the properties and in the adjacent plots there are business establishments, cinema theatre,