JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a person, who is the owner of around 82 cents of property comprised in R.S No.452/6 in Block No.9 (old Survey Nos. 261/4B1, 261/5/1, 261/5/3 and 261/5). The petitioner contends that, even as per the Data Bank prepared for the area, what is included as paddy land is only that comprised in old Survey Nos. 261/4B1, 261/5/1, 261/5/3 and 261/5, which as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deed, would only have an extent of 32.833 Ares. The balance land according to the petitioner is pucca land and is not included in the draft Data bank and hence, no conversion or an order for utilisation is necessary with respect to that land. As for the property comprised in old Survey Nos. 261/4B1, 261/5/1, 261/5/3 and 261/5, it is submitted that the same was converted long prior to 2008 and the petitioner is entitled to seek correction of the building tax assessment in accordance with the subsequent utilisation of the land. 2. The learned Government Pleader however, would submit that essentially, no correction could be sought for in the BTR, going by the binding precedent in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 SC] . Further it is submitted that, when a property is included in the draft Data Bank and the owner seeks removal of the same, the proper procedure would be to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee as has been stated in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 651]. 3. According to the petitioner, only 33.18 Ares (82 cents) of property owned, comprised in old Survey Nos. 261/4B1, 261/5/1, 261/5/3 and 261/5 was alone classified as 'Nilam'. The learned Government Pleader relies on Ext. R3(a), extract of the said BTR, which indicates that the entire properties are shown as 'Nilam' in the BTR. 4. In the circumstances as is revealed from the averments on record, if the petitioner has a case that, any land included in the Data Bank is not so includable under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 (for brevity, 'the Act'), then the proper procedure, as prescribed in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), would be to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. If the petitioner's contentions as to only one portion of the property being included in the draft Data Bank is correct, then as has been stated in Jalaja Dileep (supra) with respect to the balance properties even if it is shown as 'Nilam' in the BTR, the petitioner could approach the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for utilisation of the converted lands for other purposes. The petitioner then could also approach the appropriate revenue authorities for a fresh assessment as has been held in a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [2015(2) KLT 516]. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open all contentions of either parties.