The resurvey authorities are bound to ensure accurate classifications in the Basic Tax Register post-resurvey, and failure to do so necessitates judicial intervention.

1. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to carry out rectification of the description of the property belonging to the petitioner, wrongly entered in the basic tax register (BTR) as 'nilam' after resurvey, which was originally described as 'Purayidom' in the settlement register of Vakkom Village Office.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: -

The petitioner, along with her mother, purchased an extent of 13.54 ares of property in Vakkom Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed. They got the mutation of the property in their joint name and were remitting land tax. Later, the joint ownership right of the petitioner's mother in the property covered under Ext.P1 was given in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 settlement deed. Thereafter, the petitioner got the property mutated in her name as T.P. No.17130 of the Village Office, Vakkom and is remitting land tax as the sole owner, as is evident from Ext.P3 land tax receipt. While so, resurvey of the Vakkom Village was completed, and the resurvey records were handed over to the Vakkom Village by the 2nd respondent. As per the resurvey records, the property belonging to the petitioner, as per Ext.P3 tax receipt, was revised as 6.35 ares in Re.Sy. No.136/5 and 6.30 ares in Re.Sy. No.136/4 of Block No.9, totalling 12.65 ares in T.P. No.2366 of Vakkom Village as per Ext.P4. Petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Director, Resurvey, has erroneously noted the land belonging to the petitioner as 'nilam' instead of 'Purayidom' while submitting the BTR, as evident from Ext P5, copy of the BTR. Petitioner submits that in Ext.P6 settlement register of old Sy. No.1889, the property has been treated as 'Purayidom'. Thereupon, petitioner approached the 2nd respondent requesting for change of category of land which was rejected as per Ext.P7 and directed the petitioner to file appropriate application as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') for removal of the property from the data bank. Petitioner would submit that the property has been included in the data bank without following the due procedures contemplated as per the Act, 2008. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 petition under S.13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961), praying for an order to correct the erroneous entry in the BTR, which happened consequent to the resurvey conducted. Alleging that no action has been taken on Ext.P9, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner has submitted an application as Ext.R2(a) requesting to change the nature of the land. The application was forwarded to the Village Officer, Vakkom, for enquiry and has reported that in the resurvey records, the property has been included as 'nilam', whereas in the settlement register of the Land in old Sy.No.1889/9, the same is shown as 'purayidom'. Since the land has been included in the data bank in Vakkom Village, the petitioner was directed to file the necessary application as per the provisions of the Act, 2008, and after removal of the land from the data bank, the 2nd respondent could take necessary steps for a change in the resurvey records.

4. The 3rd respondent Assistant Director of Resurvey has also filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that by inspecting the settlement register of old Sy.No.1889/9 it is found that there are three classifications namely A