JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order to the extent it directs to correct Revenue Records concerning the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/“swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” and also to quash the conditions therein that the order is subject to the judgment in SLP No.9524 of 2020 and Ext.P5 circular. 2. Petitioner’s case is that the land in question having an extent of 8.29 Ares was converted in the year 1995. Therefore, an application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 was filed and by Ext.P2, the said application was allowed granting permission to the petitioner to use his property for any other purpose after finding that the land is lying as a “purayidom”. Thereafter, Ext.P3 application was submitted in Form A before the 3rd respondent for re-assessment of land and for effecting changes in the nature of the land in the BTR and relevant revenue records as purayidom instead of nilam. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P(C) No.25965 of 2022, Form A application submitted by the petitioner was allowed as per Ext.P4 order directing to correct Revenue Records concerning the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/”swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” and the said order shall be subject to the judgment in SLP No.9524 of 2020 and Ext.P5 circular. It is these endorsements in Ext.P4 order which is assailed in this writ petition. Petitioner relying on the judgment in LLMC Kizhakambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (3) KHC 19 , Iype Varghese v. RDO, 2020 (5) KLT 403 and Joseph C.J . v. RDO/Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, 2021 (5) KHC 298 submitted that when permission for change of user of land has been obtained, then the Revenue Authorities are obliged to make necessary changes in the BTR. Petitioner relying on the judgment in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr. Jose Uppani, 2020 (4) KHC 394 submitted that as the permission under the KLU order was obtained prior to 30.12.2007, then the amended provisions of the Paddy and Wetland Act cannot have any application. 3. Petitioner relying on the judgment in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr. Jose Uppani, 2020 (4) KHC 394 submitted that as the permission under the KLU order was obtained prior to 30.12.2007, then the amended provisions of the Paddy and Wetland Act cannot have any application. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit mainly contending that as per Ext.P4, the classification of the land of the petitioner has been changed as “swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” and that as per Ext.R3(a) amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Paddyland and Wetland Rules, 2008, the word “swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” is inserted before the word purayidom and by Ext.R3(b) circular, it was directed to include a condition in the order that it will be subject to the judgment in SLP No. 9524 of 2020. In view of the same, it is contended that the conditions in Ext.P4 order are legal and valid. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the property is covered by KLU order which was issued on 10.12.2014 and Ext.P3 application for the reassessment of land and effecting changes in the nature of land in the BTR and relevant revenue records was allowed as per Ext.P4 but with certain riders which is challenged in this writ petition. In Jose Uppani’s case supra it is held by this Court that if a KLU order is obtained prior to the cut off date, i.e., 30.12.2017, the amended provisions of the Act 2008 will have no application. A perusal of Ext.P5, (which is also produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R3(b)) would reveal that the said circular will apply to cases where change of nature of the land has been ordered as per the provisions of Paddy and Wetland Act and Rules, which is not the scenario in the present case. A perusal of Ext.P5, (which is also produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R3(b)) would reveal that the said circular will apply to cases where change of nature of the land has been ordered as per the provisions of Paddy and Wetland Act and Rules, which is not the scenario in the present case. The amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Rules 2008 came into force as per Ext.R3(a) gazette publication and it speaks about land for which change of nature of the land has been granted as per the provisions of Rule 13(3) of the Rules 2008 and therefore, the same will have no application to the property of the petitioner wherein KLU permission was granted as per Ext.P2 order after finding that the land has been converted years back and the same is not suitable for paddy cultivation and is lying as purayidom, and based on the same, Ext.P3 application has been submitted for reassessment of change of nature of the land as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and Rules. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and Ext.P4 order is quashed to the extent it directs to correct Revenue Records concerning the petitioner’s land as converted dry land/“swabhava vyathiyanam nadathiya purayidom” and also the conditions therein that the order will subject to the judgment in SLP No. 9524 of 2020 and Ext.P5 circular. There will be a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to reassess and reclassify the petitioner’s land as purayidom/dry land with a further direction to the 4th respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the thandaper, basic tax register and relevant revenue records as purayidom/dry land. Necessary orders/changes in this regard shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above.