JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- “i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash direction No.1 issued to the 3rd respondent to reclassify the petitioner's land covered there under as 'converted dry land'. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reassess and reclassify the petitioner's 02.02 Ares (5 cents of land) in Re-survey No.9/6 (Old Survey Nos.2756/2, 2762/1, 2) of Chittur Village as dry land/purayidom based on Exhibit P2 order and commanding the 4th respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the BTR and other revenue records reclassifying the petitioner's aforesaid land as dry land/purayidom. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get her 02.02 Ares (5 cents of land) in Re-survey No.9/6 (Old Survey Nos.2756/2, 2762/1, 2) of Chittur Village reassessed and reclassified as dry land/purayidom in BTR and other revenue records based on Exhibit P2 order and respondents are bound to reclassify and reassess the petitioner’s 02.02 Ares (5 cents of land) in Re-survey No.9/6 (Old Survey Nos.2756/2, 2762/1, (2) of Chittur Village reassessed and reclassified as dry land/purayidom in BTR and that the reclassification ordered by the 2nd respondent in Exhibit P2 as converted dry land is illegal and unsustainable and the reclassification of land has to be as dry land/purayidom and not as converted dry land.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 02.02 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.9/6 of Chittur Village in Chittur Taluk of Palakkad District. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a building in the said property. It is submitted that since the classification of the land in the BTR was nilam, the petitioner was required by the local authority to obtain an order under Section 27A of the 2008 Act and therefore, the petitioner had submitted an application in Form 6 and had obtained Ext.P2 order, by which, the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to reclassify the land as 'converted dry land' instead of 'dry land/ purayidom'. The petitioner has, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 application before the 3rd respondent and seeks a consideration of the same. 4. The petitioner has, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 application before the 3rd respondent and seeks a consideration of the same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ]. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the entry to be made in the revenue records should not be as 'converted land', since there is no such classification of land as provided in the relevant enactments and that in view of the conversion duly carried out by the petitioner, the land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' in the altered Basic Tax Register. 5. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the judgments of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr. Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] and in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [ 2020 (5) KLT 403 ]. If the facts stated are found to be correct and if the application is liable to be considered, then, the appropriate steps shall be taken for correction of the entry/alteration of the revenue records by entering the property as garden land/dry land/purayidom. In the above view of the matter, the direction in Ext.P2 to record the land as 'converted dry land' is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner. Appropriate follow up action shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.