JUDGMENT : The case set up in this writ petition (C) is as follows: The petitioners are constrained to approach this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 Stop Memo issued by the 2nd respondent interdicting them from carrying out construction of a building in their Purayidom on the basis of a valid Building Permit, on a premise that the Petitioners' land was classified in some old revenue document as 'Nilam', whereas going by all the existing Revenue Records including the BTR, the Petitioners' land is classified as Purayidom wherein a building has been in existence even prior to the coming into force of the KLU Order, 1967. That the petitioners are the title holders of 38.23 Ares of Purayidom comprised in Resurvey No.4/2 of Block No.82 of the Eloor Village. The nature of the Petitioners' land is Dry Land. Therefore the Petitioners' land is classified in all the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register as Purayidom, which is evident from Exts.P1 Tax Receipt, P3 Thandaper Account & P4 Possession Certificate. There is no history of any paddy cultivation or any other sort of cultivation in the Petitioners' land or in any nearby lands. Being an industrial area, the Petitioners' land is a commercially important land as the area in question is housing many industrial units. The Petitioners' land has been not been included in the Land Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act. The petitioners applied for and obtained Ext.P5 Building Permit from Eloor Municipality to construct a godown in their land after demolishing the old building. The petitioners commenced the construction as per Ext.P5 permit and the approved plan. Suddenly, the 2nd respondent issued Ex.P6 Stop Memo interdicting the petitioners from continuing with the construction of the godown on the premise that in an old record, the Petitioners' land was recorded as 'Nilam'. Ext.P6 is patently illegal. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent cannot harp upon a redundant record to prevent the Petitioners from carrying out a lawful activity in their land. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (C) seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P6 Stop Memo and quash the original of the same as illegal and opposed to law. (ii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring that the Petitioners 38.23 Ares of land in Resurvey No.4/2 in Block Number 82 of Eloor Village is Purayidom and that the Petitioners are entitled to carry out construction activities in their land on the basis of Exhibit P5 Permit and that the 2nd respondent has no authority whatsoever to harp upon a redundant Revenue Document to interdict the Petitioners form carrying out construction in their land. (iii) Pass such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.Renny Stephan Chamaparambil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would assert on the basis of instructions of his parties that the subject property covered by the impugned Ext.P6, has always been consistently shown as purayidam/garden land in the Basic Tax Register and other relevant documents. Further that the subject property has not been included in the land data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which came into force on 12-08-2008. That the area is a industrial area surrounded by a lot of buildings, both residential and commercial. Further that Ext.P2 building tax receipt would clearly show that there was an existing building in the subject property at least since the year 1962, which is even much prior to the 04-07-1967 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967). That the petitioners had also later secured necessary building permit as per Ext.P5 from the Eloor Municipality and they are in the process of undertaking the new construction in the subject property. At that time, the 2nd respondent Village Officer has issued Ext.P6 stop memo dated 16-05-2020, ordering the petitioners to stop the construction activity on the specious ground that though the subject property has been shown as garden land or purayidam in revenue records etc., the old BTR would show that it is recorded as 'nilam/paddy land' etc,. 4. The learned Government Pleader has secured instructions from the respondent Village Officer and it is submitted that pursuant to survey and inspection, earlier the property has been shown as 'purayidam or garden land' in the Basic Tax Register. 4. The learned Government Pleader has secured instructions from the respondent Village Officer and it is submitted that pursuant to survey and inspection, earlier the property has been shown as 'purayidam or garden land' in the Basic Tax Register. Further that the old settlement register has revealed that the property was then recorded as 'nilam/paddy land' and that it is on this account that Ext.P6 stop memo was issued. 5. The petitioners would seriously contend that Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 mandates that the vital document called, 'Basic Tax Register/BTR' should be maintained in each Village Office in respect of the subject property and that these rules are framed under the plenary provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 which envisages the manner and method of collecting land tax from the properties concerned. Therefore it is pointed out that there can only be one Basic Tax Register for the subject property as envisaged by the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules and that the mention in Ext.P6 that the property has been shown as 'nilam/paddy land' in the old BTR is factually wrong and that the present submission made on behalf of the respondents would also clearly indicate that the BTR has consistently shown the property as 'purayidam/garden land' and further that the 2nd respondent has only placed reliance on certain alleged recording of entries in the old settlement register that it is paddy land/nilam. Further that it is also the admitted case of the respondents that it is only pursuant to earlier survey and inspection that the subject property was found to be garden land/purayidam and it is on this account, that the Basic Tax Register, which is the vital document to be prepared in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, has correctly described the subject property as 'purayidam/garden land' and that the 2nd respondent cannot place any reliance on any old settlement register etc., so as to unsettle the settled state of affairs. More over even as per the land data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, the subject property has not been included therein, which clearly shows that the property does not satisfy either the definition of 'paddy land' as per Sec.2(xii) thereof or 'wet land' as per Sec.2(xviii) thereof etc,. More over even as per the land data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, the subject property has not been included therein, which clearly shows that the property does not satisfy either the definition of 'paddy land' as per Sec.2(xii) thereof or 'wet land' as per Sec.2(xviii) thereof etc,. Accordingly, it is urged that this Court may interdict the impugned proceedings. 6. After having heard both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the statutory primacy should be given to the Basic Tax Register, which is the statutory document prepared in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed under the provisions of Sec.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 7. Section 5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act deals with 'Charge of land tax' and Sub-Sec.2 thereof mandates that basic tax charged on any land shall be paid by the land holder concerned etc,. “Land Holder” has been defined in Sec.3(3) of the Land Tax Act as follows: “(3) “land holder” means,- (a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant; (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land; (d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.” 8. Section 4 of the Act further mandates that the arrangement under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 shall be general revenue settlement and notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, grant, deed or other transaction, the arrangement made herein for the levy of the basic tax shall be deemed inter alia to be general revenue settlement of the State. Section 20 of the said Act confers power on the State Government to frame rules. Section 20 of the said Act confers power on the State Government to frame rules. In exercise of the power under Sec. 20 of the abovesaid Act, the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 has been statutorily framed. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972, mandates that a register called Basic Tax Register shall be maintained in all Village and Taluk Offices. By virtue of combined effect of Secs.3 (3) , 4 and 5 etc., the land tax is to be collected from the land holder concerned as defined in Sec.3(3)(a). For that purpose, Basic Tax Register has to be maintained in all Village and Taluk Offices as per Rule 4. By virtue of the non obstante clause in Sec.4 of the Act, notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, grant, deed or other transaction the arrangement made as per the said Kerala Land Tax Act for the levy of basic tax shall be deemed inter alia to be general revenue settlement of the entire State. Different tax rates are prescribed for garden land and paddy land etc,. The name of the land holder and the nature of the property are thereafter duly recorded in the BTR, after such due process. Therefore the Basic Tax Register as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 is a vital statutory document and hence the entries in such a vital statutory document like the BTR cannot be simply ignored by the competent revenue officials concerned, so as to proceed adversely as against the parties like the petitioners merely on the ground that the old settlement register shows the description of the property otherwise. The said approach of the respondents is against the scheme of the statutes as framed in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972. 9. That apart, it is the admitted case of the respondents that it is after due survey and inspection of the subject property that the land was earlier classified as 'garden land' or 'purayidam', which is clearly recorded in the Basic Tax Register in relation to the subject property. Therefore, the said description in the vital statutory document like BTR as per Rule 4 cannot be disturbed merely because of the respondents find subsequently that there are some old records like the old settlement register, which show the description of the property otherwise. Therefore, the said description in the vital statutory document like BTR as per Rule 4 cannot be disturbed merely because of the respondents find subsequently that there are some old records like the old settlement register, which show the description of the property otherwise. The said approach of the respondents is to say the least arbitrary and against the statutory provisions and therefore it is illegal and ultra vires. 10. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the directions in Ext.P6 stop memo are illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable and it is also ordered that the stop memo as per Ext.P6 will stand set aside and quashed. With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.