JUDGMENT : The petitioner, which is the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Kochi Chapter, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P8 communication issued by the Kochi Corporation, informing them that their property comprised of 6.43 Ares of land in Survey Nos.339/1 and 342/1 at Kaloor, Kochi is shown as a “wet land” in the revenue records and therefore, that they can use the same only for the construction of a residential building and that too, the area of which is confined to 120 sq.m. 2. The petitioner says that the property in question was, in fact, part of Kaloor Town Planning Scheme and was acquired by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA for short) for being alloted to individuals and entities for construction of residential and commercial buildings and that they purchased the afore extent from their predecessor-in interest, who had been originally alloted it by the GCDA. They, therefore, contend that Ext.P8 is illegal and pray that it be set aside. 3. When I considered this writ petition on 25/09/2019, since there was no clarity as to the actual nature of the property in question, I had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) to file an affidavit before this Court as to how a property which was acquired by the GCDA, then converted by them and allotted to individuals and entities like the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner, could still be construed as a “paddy land” or “wet land” under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short). In obedience to these directions the RDO has now filed an affidavit wherein the following has been averred:- It is submitted that as per interim order dated 25.09.2019 this Hon'ble Court directed the 5th respondent to file additional affidavit and to report whether the property of the petitioner was a wet land in the past and as to when it was converted, though it now presents itself as a dry land. As per the above direction this respondent sought report from the Agricultural Filed Officer, Vyttila regarding the property of the petitioner and on site inspection of the Agricultural Filed Officer, it is found that the property concerned is converted for several years and there is a two storeyed building situated in this property. Moreover, four sides of the property is secured with a boundary wall. Moreover, four sides of the property is secured with a boundary wall. There is one coconut tree about 48 years of age and there are two mango trees about 50 years of age and a mango tree with 30 years of age and a Eucalyptus tree with 60 years of age and also two jack fruit trees are standing in the property. Further, one side of the property is related to Indian Express Building and other side of the property is road and other two sides were vacant properties and there is no paddy cultivation in and around the property. It is submitted that as the BTR, the property concerned is recorded as Nilam, but as per the Data Bank, the property is converted before 2008 and as per the site inspection, it is found that the property converted in the year 1980-81 and the property will not come under the purview of the provisions of Kerala conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 4. Shri.P. Gopinatha Menon, learned Senior Counsel-assisted by Shri.Jai Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner-submitted that, as is evident from the afore extracted averments, the property in question can never be now construed to be “paddy land” or “wet land” and therefore, that the statements in Ext.P8 are clearly untenable. He, therefore, reiteratingly prays that the said order be set aside. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for Kochi Corporation - Smt.Sareena George, submitted that Ext.P8 had been issued only because, in the Possession Certificate produced by the petitioner, the property has been shown as a “wet land”. She says that since the RDO has now submitted that the property does not come within the ambit of the Paddy Land Act, the Corporation is willing to act as per any further directions to be issued by this Court. 6. When I assess the afore submissions and the pleadings on record, it is clear that the property in question was part of a Town Planning Scheme promoted by the GCDA and that they had acquired these lands for the purpose of developing and allotting it to individuals and entities. It is conceded that the petitioner has also come to be in possession and ownership of this property through their predecessor-in-interest, who had got it through such an allotment from the GCDA. It is conceded that the petitioner has also come to be in possession and ownership of this property through their predecessor-in-interest, who had got it through such an allotment from the GCDA. Indubitably, therefore, the property in question cannot be any more construed to be a “wet land”, as has been stated in Ext.P8. Therefore, even if there are such endorsements in the Possession Certificate, it is obvious that this is so only because these entries continued over the years in the Revenue Records without being changed. 7. In the afore circumstances, I am of the firm opinion that this an eminently fit case where this Court can intervene and grant relief to the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, Ext.P8 will stand quashed and Corporation of Kochi will consider the application of the petitioner for a building permit as per the above observations and adverting to the afore extracted averments of the 5th respondent-RDO; and then issue appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. I also leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authority for correction of the Revenue Records, in which event, the same will be considered in terms of law, after adverting to the afore extracted averments of the 5th respondent- RDO. 10. It goes without saying that Kochi Corporation will, as per the afore directions, without waiting for the correction in the Revenue Records and issue the building permit to the petitioner, subject to them complying with all statutory conditions and requirements as are prescribed under the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations. This writ petition is thus ordered.