Judgment : Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2022 1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P2(a) to the extent it reclassifies the petitioner's land covered by Ext.P1 as converted dry land. 2. The petitioner states that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 Hectares and 24.45 Ares of land in Re-Survey Nos.12/2, 12/3, 12/4, 12/4-2, 12/7, 9/20 and 12/10 of Thiruvaniyoor Village in Block No.41, Kunnathunadu Taluk of Ernakulam District. The land was described as paddy land in Revenue records. The petitioner, thereupon, approached the competent authority and the competent authority, as per Ext.P1, ordered to change the nature of the land in Revenue records on certain conditions. The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, however, issued Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders by which, the Tahsildar has directed to describe the land as 'converted garden land' in Tax Receipts and Thandaper. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules clearly described that when a land is reclassified, it should be described as purayidam/dry land and not as converted dry land. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.10105/2022, wherein this Court held that when reclassification is done into a garden land, the same cannot be described as 'converted land', since there is no such classification of land as provided in the relevant enactments. 4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and contested the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. The petitioner had invoked remedies under the provision of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P1 proceedings on 12.05.2022 permitting change of nature of the petitioner’s land in Revenue records. When the nature of a paddy land or wetland is directed to be changed after due enquiries, then the Revenue records should show the actual state of affairs of the land. It is evident that the petitioner’s land is a garden land now. When the nature of a paddy land or wetland is directed to be changed after due enquiries, then the Revenue records should show the actual state of affairs of the land. It is evident that the petitioner’s land is a garden land now. Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act reads as follows: From Rule 13(3), it is clear that the nature of a land, when permitted to be changed, should be described as garden land (purayidam). The issue is covered by a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.10105/2022. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P2 and P2(a) are quashed to the extent they describe the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to reassess and reclassify the petitioner’s land as purayidam/dry land based on Ext.P1 order. The 4th respondent shall carry out necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue records, within a period of one month.