Where a plot of land has been converted from wetland to dry land (Purayidam) under an authorized KLU order, the revenue authorities are legally obligated to rectify the land classification records to reflect the converted status of the property.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i. To issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside Exhibits.P6 and P7.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to reconsider and dispose of Exhibit.P11 in accordance with law within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iii. Declare that the petitioner's 47.80 Ares of land comprising in Re Survey Nos 4/2-7 and 4/2-8 in Block No.21 of Vazhapally East Village of Changanasserry Taluk is a Purayidam.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction, commanding 3^rd respondents to change/add the classification of petitioners' 47.80 Ares of land comprising in Re Survey Nos 4/2-7 and 4/2-8 in Block No.21 of Vazhapally East Village of Changanasserry Taluk as ‘Purayidam’ in Thandaper Register and Basic Tax Register forthwith.

v. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. order or direction, commanding the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P11 representation forthwith.

vi. Such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner herein is the owner of 47.80 ares of land in Re-survey Nos.42/7 & 42/8, Block 21, Vazhappally East Village, Changanassery Taluk acquired through Exts.P1 & P2 settlement deeds. The petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to classify the land as Purayidam in revenue records including Thandaper Register and Basic Tax Register. The land was converted from Nilam to Purayidam in 2003 by Petitioner's father vide RDO order dt. 30.12.2003, and prior Writ Petitions, Exts.P3 to P5 directed Tahsildar to consider reclassification, which was partially implemented but revenue records, Exts.P6 to P10, still erroneously show it as Nilam, preventing bank loans despite physical conversion and surrounding commercial use, is the grievance. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 07.07.2025 to the 3^rd respondent, but no action taken so far. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. Petitioner relied on the judgments of this court in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala [2020 KHC 5400] and Musthafa v. State of Kerala [2023 (5) KHC 201]. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's father obtained the KLU Order. If that is the case, in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Mary Abraham's and Musthafa's cases (supra), the consequential correction is necessary in BTR as 'purayidom'. I am of the considered opinion that Exts.P6 and P7 to the extent of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to change the classification of the property as 'purayidom' can be set aside, and there can be a direction to do the needful in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Mary Abraham's and Musthafa's cases (supra).

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Exts.P6 and P7 are set aside to the extent of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to change the classification of the property as 'purayidom'.

2. The 3^rd respondent/competent Authority is directed to do the consequential correction regarding the classification of the property in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Mary Abraham's and Musthafa's cases (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.