JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. These writ appeals raise the same question that arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge. The question considered by the learned Single Judge was whether the correction of the Basic Tax Register (BTR) from nilam to purayidam, based on re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, requires compliance with the process of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' in short). This question was answered in favour of the writ petitioner, who had challenged the action of the Revenue Authorities. There is no dispute to the fact that all these lands were originally classified as nilam in the settlement register. Thereafter, based on a re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008, land involved in these cases were classified as purayidam in the re-survey BTR. The nature of the land as on the date of the promulgation of Act 28 of 2008 is not in doubt; it is neither paddy land nor wetland. The change in description of the land from nilam in the settlement register to purayidam in the re-survey BTR form the subject of the challenge. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Indira v. Sub Collector ; [ 2020 (4) KLT 635 ] took the view that the BTR, as envisaged in Rule 4 of Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1976, is a vital statutory document, and that the entries therein cannot be simply ignored by the competent Revenue Authority to proceed adversely as against the parties merely on the ground that the settlement register describes the property as nilam or wetland. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Rule 2(e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('the Rules' in short) was not adverted to in Indira 's case(supra) and, therefore, the judgment in Indira 's case(supra) cannot be relied on. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 2(e) of the Rules which reads as follows; “2(e) The term "Basic Tax Register" includes the Settlement Register as well as the Supplementary Basic Tax Register.” These Rules came into force only with effect from 15.12.2018 and can have no impact on the present cases. Admittedly, through a process of re-survey, the land has been classified as purayidam in the BTR much before the Rules came into effect. 4. Admittedly, through a process of re-survey, the land has been classified as purayidam in the BTR much before the Rules came into effect. 4. The Rules were never intended to unsettle any entry in the BTR made prior to their formulation in 2018. Further, we note that there is no substantive provision in the parent Act governing this aspect, and the extent to which the Rules can hold the field in addressing the issue is left open. The point for consideration is that, in the event of inconsistency between the settlement register and the Basic Tax Register, it is the BTR that has to be followed by the Revenue Authorities or not. Admittedly, in all these cases, the land is classified as nilam in the settlement register, whereas in the BTR it is classified as purayidam. 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, referred to the distinguishing features of the settlement register and the BTR. It is to be noted that the change effected in the BTR in all these cases was the result of a conscious act following the re-survey. This indicates that the Revenue Authorities intended to effect a change of classification to purayidam through a process undertaken by the survey authorities. It is not a mere descriptive change consequent upon a re-survey, but an acknowledgment of the nature of the land by declaring it as purayidam. The fact that the settlement register continues to describe the land as nilam is not decisive, since the Revenue Authorities had consciously taken a decision to record it as purayidam in the BTR. Though the State has pleaded in its counter that it is an erroneous entry, we are unable to accept this argument at the outset, for the simple reason that, acting on this entry, a petroleum outlet has been established in one of the writ appeals, and all related documents have described the land as purayidam from 2005 onwards. In the other cases also, the land is continued to be treated as purayidam, and no one has contended that, on the strength of a mistaken entry, the landholders converted the land from nilam to purayidam after the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. This indicates that the conversion had taken place prior to Act 28 of 2008 and that the land has since then remained as purayidam. This indicates that the conversion had taken place prior to Act 28 of 2008 and that the land has since then remained as purayidam. That is precisely why none of the land in these cases found a place in the Data Bank. A mere assertion that the entry is mistaken or erroneous cannot support the case of the State, unless it is demonstrated how such mistake or error occurred in changing the description of the land in the BTR. On the other hand, we find authority for effecting such changes in the Government Orders issued from time to time since 1965. 6. The learned Single judge of this Court, in Jasmin v. District Collector , Collectorate Thiruvananthapuram [2025 KHC OnLine 939], after surveying the Government Orders issued from 1965 onwards, arrived at a definite conclusion in paragraph 14, which reads as follows: “14. From the Government orders referred above, it is without any doubt that the resurvey authorities are entrusted not only to survey the land, to settle the boundary disputes, but also collect details regarding the nature of land, land/crops in the land in question and has to transfer the said details to the Revenue Administration so as to make necessary changes in the revenue records like the Basic Tax Register and the power to deal with any complaints in this regard has been entrusted to the Tahsildar (Land Records).” 7. This shows that the Revenue Authorities had the power to correct the entries in the BTR consequent upon re- survey. We observe that the present dilemma of the Revenue Officials arises from the incorporation of Section 27A of the Act, under which the State may demand premium for conversion of land and levy the prescribed fee with effect from 31.12.2017 onwards. If the land has been treated as purayidam for more than a decade, the State cannot now contended that the entry in the BTR was a mistake. The State itself has acted on such an entry for a long period. 8. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court [one among us (A.Muhamed Mustaque)] in W.P.(C)No.17463 of 2020 dated 22.12.2020, which had placed reliance on Indira 's case(supra), has been set aside by the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Santhosh B. ; [ 2025 KHC 1728 ]. 8. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court [one among us (A.Muhamed Mustaque)] in W.P.(C)No.17463 of 2020 dated 22.12.2020, which had placed reliance on Indira 's case(supra), has been set aside by the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Santhosh B. ; [ 2025 KHC 1728 ]. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in that case, held that, based on a re-survey conducted in 1994, the land has been treated as purayidam in the BTR and assessed as such under the Land Tax Act, and that this could not be revisited by the Revenue Officials. We also note that similar arguments have been raised by the Revenue in the above case, contending that such entries are mistaken. We are of the view that this reflects a pattern of defence consistently adopted by the Revenue Officials to justify their proceedings. The above judgment was challenged in Santhosh B 's case(supra), wherein the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, observing in Paragraph 6 as follows: “6. The Appellants justify Ext.P10 proceedings of the Tahsildar (Land Records) stating that the said officer has authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P10. However, no specific provision of the said Act enabling the Tahsildar to pass such an order has been pointed out. It is also to be noticed that the specific case of the Appellants is that the description of the land as 'purayidam' was on the basis of resurvey. No provision of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 conferring any authority on the Tahsildar to correct a mistake committed by the officials during resurvey is also pointed out. In short, there is no clarity as to how the officials involved in resurvey changed the classification of the disputed property as 'purayidam' and the Tahsildar directed to change it as 'nilam'. Both actions were taken without the authority of law, obviously.” 9. It is obvious that neither the Government nor the writ petitioner in that case brought to the notice of the Division Bench about the Government Orders referred to in Jasmin ’s case (supra). Consequently, the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that there was no provision enabling the Tahsildar to pass such orders for correction of the basic entries. 10. It is obvious that neither the Government nor the writ petitioner in that case brought to the notice of the Division Bench about the Government Orders referred to in Jasmin ’s case (supra). Consequently, the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that there was no provision enabling the Tahsildar to pass such orders for correction of the basic entries. 10. In the light of the Government Orders referred to in Jasmin 's case (supra), we find that the judgment in Santhosh B 's case(supra) is per incuriam, having overlooked the said Government Orders. We make it clear that, if the Revenue Officials have a case that, notwithstanding the description of the property in the Basic Tax Register as purayidam, the natural lie of the land shows it to be nilam or wetland, it is open for them to proceed in accordance with law to include such land in the Data Bank. However, in none of these cases, the Revenue Officials have made such a contention that the natural lie of the property has remained as paddy land or wetland. For treating land as paddy land or wetland, the entries in the BTR or settlement register are not decisive; it must be established that the land comes within the meaning of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Paddy Land and Wetland Act as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008. In the light of the above, these writ appeals are dismissed.