Antony Dominic, J.

This appeal is filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.24116/12. Respondents herein, who are the owners of 12.87 ares of land situated in Sy.No.76/15 and 28.33 ares in Sy.No.76/16 of Kizhakkambalam village filed the writ petition contending that their land has been converted into a garden land about more than 30 to 35 years ago and is cultivated with coconut trees. It is stated that despite that, in the Basic Tax Register, the property has been described as a paddy land. They say that, therefore, they made Ext.P3 representation to the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008), which had published a data bank including the lands in question, requesting to exclude their properties. With these averments, they filed the writ petition seeking a prayer directing the respondents therein to exclude the land from the data bank prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of Act 28 of 2008 and also to require the 3rd respondent therein to correct the entry regarding the description of the land contained in the Basic Tax Register and to note the same as garden land.

2. Pursuant to the interim order dated 18/10/12 passed in IA No.14166/12 directing the 1st appellant to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 mentioned above, lands were inspected. On inspection, the property was found converted approximately 20 years prior to the inspection and to be unsuitable for paddy cultivation. In the statement filed by the 2nd appellant, it was also stated that the Local Level Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 30/11/12 took note of the inspection report and decided to change the entry of the respondents' property in the draft data bank and the entry was corrected as "converted land".

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, taking note of the above development resulting in modification of the entry in the draft data bank and also taking note of the principles laid down by this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012 (3) KLT 333), this Court directed the 4th appellant herein to consider the grievance of the respondents to make necessary correction in the Basic Tax Register at the earliest. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

4. Though the factual aspects leading to the change in the draft data bank are not disputed by the leaned Government Pleader, what he contends is that in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015 (1) KLT 984) reversing the judgment in Jalaja Dileep's case (supra), the judgment of the learned single Judge is untenable. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents however contended that having regard to the fact that Local Level Monitoring Committee itself has modified the draft data bank, respondents are entitled to have the Basic Tax Register corrected in terms of Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act.

5. We have considered the submissions made.

6. It is true as contended by the learned Government Pleader that the judgment in Jalaja Dileep's case (supra) was reversed by the Apex Court in the judgment mentioned above. In the said judgment, after referring to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and Act 28 of 2008, law has been laid down by the Apex Court by holding thus;

"17. "Paddy land" and "Wetlands" are defined under Section 2(xii) and 2(xviii) of the Act respectively. As per Section 5(4), the Committee shall inter alia prepare a Data Bank with details of cultivable paddy land within the jurisdiction of the Committee. If the land is not included in the Data Bank or Draft Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Cultivation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 and if it is not a "Paddy Land" or "Wetland" as defined under Act 28 of 2008, at the time of commencement of the Act 12 (sic Act 28) of 2008 and the classification of land is noted as "Nilam" in the revenue records, the pr