JUDGMENT : Nitin Jamdar, C.J. Heard Mr.S.Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants and Mr.K.C.Vincent, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. This Appeal is filed by the State challenging the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 2 April 2024 disposing of the Writ Petition No.39771/2024 filed by the Respondent Original Petitioner. The learned Single Judge directed the Appellants to consider the Form A application filed by the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 ], Shahul Hameed v. Principal Secretary, Local Self Government [ 2018 (1) KLT 1008 ], District Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] and Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2020 (5) KLT 56 ] and a decision in Form A application will be taken based on the observation made above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the issue relating to maintenance of tax register under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules framed thereunder. The Petitioner contended that an order is passed in favour of the Petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 December 2008, whereby permission is granted for making bricks in the property. According to the Petitioner, in view of this order passed under the KLU Order, 1967, changes in the tax register will have to be made. The learned Single Judge found merit in this contention and passed the impugned direction. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondent at the outset submits that the order has been complied with by the State and, therefore, this Appeal should not be entertained. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that since a question of law is raised, the Appeal will have to be considered in light of the said question. Learned Special Government Pleader sought to contend that though the order issued under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order will have to be taken note of the changes in the Land Tax Register the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer relied upon by the Petitioner is not one such order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner asserts that it is an order under the KLU order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner asserts that it is an order under the KLU order. It has not been shown to us that if it is not an order under the Kerala Land Utilization, then under which provision, the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted permission for making bricks in the property. The application and the order shows all ingredients of invoking power under the KLU order and mere non-reference to a specific provision does not mean that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. This contention is rejected. 5. The second contention of the learned Government Pleader is that an Appeal is filed by a third party as against the order dated 12 August 2008, however, the order in Appeal is part of the record, where an Appeal filed by the third party is disposed of, keeping it open to the said party to move the local Level Monitoring Committee, if so advised. 6. However, now that the order has already been passed, no further directions are required. Considering the fact that a third party Mr.P.A.Joseph has raised certain grievances as regards the order dated 12 December 2008 and considering that the entries in land tax register do not confer title, we keep all the rights of the said third party Sri.P.A.Joseph open as against the Petitioner. 7. This Appeal is accordingly disposed of.