JUDGMENT :

Petitioner has approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order to the extent it directs to correct Revenue Records concerning the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/“swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” and also to quash the conditions therein that the order is subject to the judgment in SLP No.9524 of 2020 and Ext.P5 circular.

2. Petitioner’s case is that the land in question having an extent of 8.29 Ares was converted in the year 1995. Therefore, an application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 was filed and by Ext.P2, the said application was allowed granting permission to the petitioner to use his property for any other purpose after finding that the land is lying as a “purayidom”. Thereafter, Ext.P3 application was submitted in Form A before the 3rd respondent for re-assessment of land and for effecting changes in the nature of the land in the BTR and relevant revenue records as purayidom instead of nilam. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P(C) No.25965 of 2022, Form A application submitted by the petitioner was allowed as per Ext.P4 order directing to correct Revenue Records concerning the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/”sw