JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 02.03.2017, whereby the following prayers sought in the writ petition filed on behalf of 1 st respondent/writ petitioner, has been accepted; “i. Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of Ext.P5 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus to declare that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P6. Circular and therefore entitled for a valid Building Permit in the light of Ext.Pl order issued under Kerala Land Utilisation Order . iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to re-consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications in the light of Ext.Pl order issued under Kerala Land Utilisation Order as well as Ex.P6 circular.” 2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner on the ground that he is the absolute owner of 78.19 Ares of property comprised in Sy.Nos.442/16-2- 2, 442/15-2-2, 442/15-2-3, 442/16-2-1, 442/15-2-1, 442/16-3, 442/15-3- 1 and 442/18-1 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Ernakulam District, covered by three sale deeds, bearing No.1156/2014 dated 06.03.2015, 7723/2014 dated 18.12.2014 and 7720/2014 dated 18.12.2014 of Kolenchery Sub Registrar Office. 3. The authorities, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Muvattupuzha was approached under the erstwhile Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) of 1967, for permitting the change of the user of the land from ‘Nilam’ to ‘other than the agricultural purposes’. On inspection by the RDO, vide Ext.P1 order dated 02.05.2016, permission was granted to use the said property for the purposes other than agricultural operations. It is pertinent to mention here that the order has become final and has never been challenged. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the property is lying as an absolute dry land and has been converted over more than 10 years of ago, lying above the PWD road, but the Basic Tax Register (BTR) was still showing the character of the land as paddy land (Nilam), despite the fact that there is already a conversion order. 4. 4. The 1 st respondent/writ petitioner had put up a temporary shed with tin sheet roof for the purpose of distributing rice, vegetables and home appliance etc., to the local people on subsidized rates under the aegis of a charitable organization called 'twenty- twenty' and submitted Ext.P3 application dated 5.11.2016 to the Secretary of the Panchayat for granting permission to construct a shed in steel frames with tress work roof. Along with Ext.P3 application, also filed an application for building permit with required plan and certification and all other documents, as evidenced from Ext.P4. 5. The Secretary, Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P5 communication dated 9.11.2015 rejecting the permission on the ground that the land in question is a converted land. The aforementioned rejection was challenged by taking various ground and also by taking the aid of Ext.P6 circular dated 19.04.2016, which was issued for the purpose of giving clarification with regard to various judgments and Clause 3 of the said circular mandates that before granting building permit in those properties which are described as paddy land in revenue records/basic tax register and not so recorded in the Draft Data Bank/Data Bank, it shall be ensured that the permission by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or regularisation order under Section 3A of the Kerala Protection of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2015, is already granted. 6. A report of the 3 rd additional respondent therein, dated 15.12.2016, was placed on record before the learned Single Bench. Taking note of the aforementioned report, learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition in the following terms; “ (i) by declaring that the property of the petitioner comprising of 78.19 Ares, in Sy.Nos. 442/16-2-2, 442/15-2-2, 442/15-2-3, 442/16-2-1, 442/15-2-1, 442/16-3, 442/15-3-1 and 442/18-1 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Ernakulam District is not either paddy land or wetland, for the purposes of inclusion in the Land Data Bank prepared in accordance with the 2008 Act. (ii)The Agricultural Officer, in his capacity as the Convenor of the LLMC, is directed to exclude the said land of the petitioner from the Land Data Bank. If the data bank is at the draft stage, the land shall be excluded before finalising the data bank, and notifying the same. (ii)The Agricultural Officer, in his capacity as the Convenor of the LLMC, is directed to exclude the said land of the petitioner from the Land Data Bank. If the data bank is at the draft stage, the land shall be excluded before finalising the data bank, and notifying the same. If, on the other hand, the data bank has already been finalised, and notified through publication in the Gazette, the Agricultural Officer, shall issue a corrigendum notification showing the exclusion of the land from the data bank, and publish the said corrigendum notification in the Gazette. In the meanwhile, The Agricultural Officer shall, after excluding the land from the data bank, issue a certificate to the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, certifying that the land in question has been excluded from the data bank. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already obtained Ext.P1 order from the authorities under the KLU Order, the said order will suffice for the purposes of the petitioner producing the same before the local authority for the grant of building permit. (iii) The 1 st respondent Panchayath shall, on the petitioner producing the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer in his capacity as the Convenor of the LLMC, as also Ext.P1 order passed by the authorities under the KLU Order, consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit, afresh, in the light of the said certificate and order, and de hors the description of the property in the Basic Tax Register. The 1 st respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within a period of three weeks on the petitioner producing the order of the authorities under the KLU Order. To enable the 1 st respondent to do so, I quash Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent. (iv) The petitioner shall, on receipt of the certificate from the LLMC, and Ext.P1 order permitting conversion under the KLU Order, produce copies of the same before the Land Tax Authorities, for causing a fresh assessment and consequential change in classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the revenue authorities were not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, which caused gross miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the revenue authorities were not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, which caused gross miscarriage of justice to the appellant. The title deeds, relied upon by the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner, described the property as 'Nilam' and the title deed is of 2014 and therefore, it cannot be said to be converted prior to 2008. Ext.P4 application, submitted to the Secretary, Panchayat was incomplete. The report submitted by the 3 rd respondent clearly stated the full details of the particulars with regard to the property and the same has been submitted without concealing any aspect and are on the basis of the Satellite images obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing Environmental Centre, which clearly shows that the change in the land use pattern had occurred subsequent to the year 2008. The properties which are not filled up, would necessarily come within the ambit of the Act 12 of 2008, i.e., the notified date. All these factors, if looked into cumulatively, the intra-court appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 submitted that, in the absence of any interim stay by this court, the directions of the learned Single Bench have been complied, a permit has been issued and the construction has already been completed by showing the photographs and therefore, the cause of action allegedly accrued in favor of the appellant herein no longer subsists. 9. Mr.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader, in rebuttal submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, an affidavit has been filed by the Grama Panchayat stating that an Agriculture Officer in charge of the Panchayat who is the ex- officio Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) was contacted and she had confirmed that she has not authorized or requested anybody to file this appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book. 11. The contents of the report relied upon by the Single Judge and the affidavit by the Panchayat reads as under: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT I, K.V. Jacob, aged 48 years, S/o.Varghese, President, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat, Kizhakkambalam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I am the President of the 2 nd respondent Panchayat in this Writ The Panchayat was the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition No.37030/2016. I am the President of the 2 nd respondent Panchayat in this Writ The Panchayat was the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition No.37030/2016. The present appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition dated 2.3.2017. 2. In my capacity as the President of the Panchayat, under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act , 2008, I am the ex-officio Chairman of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). It is seen that the present appeal has been filed by the LLMC. The LLMC had never decided or authorized any person to file this appeal. 3. On coming to know of this Appeal, I had contacted the Agricultural Officer in-charge of the Panchayat, who is the ex-officio Convenor of the LLMC. She had also confirmed to me that she has not authorized or requested anybody to file this appeal, though the cause title of the appeal says that the LLMC is being represented by the Agricultural Officer. 4. The pleadings made in the Appeal Memorandum have been made without our knowledge or concurrence. We are also not sure as tro who instructed the office of the Advocate General to file the present Appeal. 5. Neither me nor the Agricultural Officer is aware of the contents of the pleadings in the appeal. This being the position, it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the concerned Government Pleader in-charge of this Appeal to produce the necessary authentication by which this appeal has been filed. 6. This is a serious matter, which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider while considering the matter of admission of the above Appeal, since I have been informed that the Appeal has not yet been admitted.” Report of the Agricultural Officer Respondent No.3 as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court dtd. 25/11/2016 ? As instructed by this Hon'ble Court I applied for the report of the lie and nature of the Property as it remained on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 from the Director, KSRSEC, Thiruvanathapuram. ? The report and map was obtained by letter No.A/172/2016/KSRSEC dtd 09/12/2016. Which is produced herewith and marked as R3 (1). ? ? The report and map was obtained by letter No.A/172/2016/KSRSEC dtd 09/12/2016. Which is produced herewith and marked as R3 (1). ? As per the report according to Survey of India Toposheet of 1967 the area of survey numbers 442/15,448/16,442/18 which are adjoining land owned by the petitioner in Kizhakkambalam village of Kunnathunadu Taluk Ernakulam Disrict shows as the area under paddy fields. ? But the images of cartosat of the above land as on 12.08.2005, (figure 3) 24.01.2008(figure4), 28.03.2009 (fig.4), 28.03.2009(fig,26.12.2013)(fig.6), shows change in land use pattern and construction in the north west side, Coconut cultivation in the southern end and the remaining portion has been kept fallow. ? From the images of 12.08.2005, (figure 3) 24.01.2008 (figure4), 28.03.2009 (fig 5), 26.12.2013( fig.6) and 26.02.2016 (fig.7) shows change in land use pattern. ? As per the observation and conclusion of the Director of KSREC as on 1967 the area was under paddy cultivation. But the imagery of 2005 onwards shows change in land use pattern and a construction in the north-west side, coconut cultivation in the southern end and the remaining portion has been kept fallow The image of 2016 shows the recent land use activities with constructions in the south-west portion. ? Physical inspection was conducted on 13/12/2016 in the property and submitting report as follows:- 4. Extent The said land has an extent of 78.19 ares and comprised in Sy.Nos.442/16-2-2, 442/15-2-2, 442/16-2-1, 442/15-2-1, 442/16-3, 442/15-3-1 and 442/18-1 of of Kizhakkambalam village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. ? Lie and Nature From the apparent appearance of the property it is converted and dry land. There are 05 nos of coconut trees having an approximate age of 15 years in the southern end and the remaining portion seemingly kept fallow. The surface of the land is hard. There is no other cultivation seemed in the land in recent years. Presently some portion of land is using as distribution centre of essential commodities to the public by "Twenty 20 Association". ? Adjacent properties On the southern side there is a thodu flowing west and there is retaining wall by RR masentry in cement concrete in the bank adjacent to this property. North of the property there is an untarred road leading to Toddy shop No.61 constructed in converted land which is apparently behind this property Eastern side is adjacent to Aluva - Thripunithura PWD road. North of the property there is an untarred road leading to Toddy shop No.61 constructed in converted land which is apparently behind this property Eastern side is adjacent to Aluva - Thripunithura PWD road. Opposite side of this road also filled land where a commercial building is functioning. West there is uncultivated paddy land lieing about 2.5 metres below to this property. ? Data Bank The LLMC was not reconstituted in the panchayat. However as per the draft data bank the following is the nature of the land: Survey No. Nature of land a. 442/15-2 Filled land b. 442/15-2-2 Filled land c. 442/15-2-3 Filled land d. 442/15-3 Filled land e. 442/16 Partially Filled land f. 442/18 Partially Filled land ? Revenue Records As per the revenue records the land is recorded as nilam as per BTR. ? Title Deed Tittle deed Nos.1156/2014,7723/2014,7720/2014 of SRO, Puthencruz the property described as nilam. From the entries in the aforesaid records,it is concluded that the land use pattern in the aforesaid 78.19 ares land has changed prior to the enactment of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,2008. In the circumstances the report may be accepted and the matter may be disposed of in accordance with the law. Dated this 15 th day of December, 2016 Jayamala K.K. Agricultural Officer Krishibhavan, Kizhakkambalam. 12. It is a matter of record that Ext.P1 order dated 02.05.2015 issued under the Kerala Utilization Order has never been assailed and become final. The tax register is not a document of title, it is only for the fiscal purposes and rightly so, directions have been issued as a consequential order for correction of the tax register, which has to be passed once the order under Kerala Utilization Order of 1967, converting the land from agriculture to non- agriculture purposes, has been issued. Already permission has been granted. Such academic issue cannot be kept pending for laying the law. Moreover, a third-party writ appeal preferred by one P.H.Anoop, V.G.Raveendran and Sony Antony in W.A.No.721 of 2017 against the judgment of the Single Bench have already been withdrawn vide judgment dated 03.03.2025. We find no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge. Nothing survives in the writ appeal. Writ appeal stands dismissed.