JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed challenging letter issued by Tahsildar as Ext.P3 directing petitioner to approach RDO with a request for correction of nature of property in Basic Tax Register. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted that petitioner had obtained Ext.P1 order from RDO under clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilization Order. It is submitted that application on which Ext.P1 order was passed was submitted on 27.7.2017. It is submitted that thereafter, petitioner had made Ext.P2 application accompanied by due applications in prescribed form for correction/additions in Basic Tax Register by entering property of petitioner as purayidom/dry land/garden land and seeking reassessment of tax in terms of Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that said request has been rejected/returned by Tahsildar by Ext.P3 proceedings stating that petitioner has to approach RDO under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. learned counsel for petitioner submits that issue stands squarely covered by decisions of this Court in Fr.Jose Uppani and others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [ 2020 (3) KLT 492 ] and of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] as well as decision of this Court in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [ 2020 (5) KLT 403 ]. It is submitted that 2nd respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P2 request as well as application preferred by petitioner in due form and to record conversion of land, exercising powers under Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that necessary additional entries will have to be made in Basic Tax Register maintained in terms of Rule 4 of Kerala Land Tax Rules to show change in nature of land as 'garden land or purayidom' and a reassessment will have to be effected in respect of properties in question. 4. learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that entry to be made in revenue records should not be as 'converted land' since there is no such classification of land as provided in relevant enactments or even in terms of revenue manual and that in view of conversion duly carried out by petitioner, land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/ purayidom' in altered Basic Tax Register. 5. 5. learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that pursuant to filing of this writ petition, Tahsildar is reconsidering issue and petitioner has been called for a hearing to be conducted on 6.9.2021. 6. Having considered contentions advanced and after considering decisions of this Court, I am of opinion that challenge raised by petitioner as against Ext.P3 rejection by 2nd respondent is sustainable and is liable to be allowed. In above view of matter, Ext.P3 order of rejection is set aside. There will be a direction to 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 request made by petitioner as well as application preferred by petitioner in due form and to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. In case property of petitioner, which is subject matter of this writ petition, which is shown as 'paddy land/nilam' in Basic Tax Register have been converted as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' on strength of Ext.P1 order or even earlier, entries in Basic Tax Register describing properties as 'nilam or paddy land' would become redundant and revenue authorities are statutorily obliged to pass appropriate orders in exercise of their powers under Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act. Appropriate steps to secure additional entries in Basic Tax Register to show change in nature of land as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' will have to be taken by 2nd respondent so that higher land tax could be levied in respect of property in accordance with conversion. There will, accordingly, be a direction to 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 request and application submitted by petitioner in due form and to effect alterations by additional entries in Basic Tax Register to show change in nature of land as 'purayidom/dry land/garden land' and to reassess properties accordingly. In view of fact that 2nd respondent is already in seizing of issue and is considering application preferred by petitioner and has scheduled a hearing on 6.9.2021, necessary shall be done by 2nd respondent within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate follow up action for effecting changes in Basic Tax Register shall be carried out by 3rd respondent, in accordance with law, thereafter. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.