Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Tahsildar, Kanayannur and Village Officer, Elamkulam is against the judgment of the learned single Judge declaring that the property of the writ petitioner will have to be classified as 'reclaimed purayidam' (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register and the direction issued to the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to effect appropriate correction in the Basic Tax Register in terms of that declaration. The Tahsildar and the Village Officer were further directed to issue to the writ petitioner, on application, a corrected copy of the relevant page of the Basic Tax Register. It was also directed that the relevant and corresponding entries in the revenue records will also be corrected. The writ appeal is fundamentally on the plea that the scope of Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, for short, 'Land Tax Act', is limited to rectification of mistakes and therefore, when the nature of the land and its user changes with passage of time, such changes cannot be recorded as if rectification of mistake is being done under Section 18 of that Act and that the rectification directed to be done is contrary to the settled position of law in terms of the earlier pronouncements of the Division Bench in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] and of a single Judge in Hajee Abubacker v. R.D.O., Palakkad [2009(4) KLT 49].

2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent writ petitioner.

3. At the outset, we may refer to the decision in Praveen (supra) which was decided by the Division Bench following an order of reference made by a learned single Judge on the premise that there is some conflict of opinion in the decisions rendered in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector [2009 (1) KLT 123], Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] and Hajee Abubacker (supra). Dilating on the legal issues with reference to the scope and continued application of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, for short, 'KLU Order', after the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for short, 'Wetland Act', came into force, the Division Bench held that as regards paddy land or wetland, the provisions in the KLU Order have no application with effect from 12.8.2008, the date on which the Wetland Act came into force. The Bench concurred with Shahanaz Shukkoor (supra) wherein it was held that mere description of an item of property as 'nilam' or wetland in the revenue records, is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those for which a paddy land or wetland can be used and that the definitions of the terms 'paddy land' and 'wetland' in the Wetland Act are sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on the description in the title document. The Bench also concurred with Hajee Abubacker (supra) in which it was held that after coming into force of the Wetland Act, no order can be passed on an application under the KLU Order. It was held that there was no conflict between Shahanaz Shukkoor (supra) and Jayakrishnan (supra) in which it was held that it is for the competent authority to enquire as to whether a particular parcel of land is paddy land or wetland and proceed accordingly. In Praveen (supra), the Division Bench clarified the legal position in paragraph 15 of that judgment as reported in KLT, which reads as follows:

“15. It is true that if it is a paddy land or wetland, the provisions contained in the Land Utilization Order has no application after the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, namely, with effect from 12.8.2008. But still it is open to dispute as to whether a particular land is a paddy land or wet land or whether it is a land cultivate