JUDGMENT : C.S. Dias, J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 34.700 cents of land, comprised in Survey No.946/1 in Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 document and Exts. P2 to P4 possession certificates. In Exts.P2 to P4 certificates, the petitioner’s property has been classified as ‘land’. However, in Ext.P5 notified data bank, the petitioner’s property has been classified as ‘nilam’ and in Ext.P6 Thandaper Register, the petitioner’s property has been classified as ‘purayidam’. The petitioner has been remitting land tax based on Ext.P6 Thandaper Register. To the petitioner’s surprise, he found that his property has been classified as ‘nilam’ in the official digital records. Even though the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents to change the classification of his land in the digital records, the same has not been done. In the information received under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has learnt that the Basic Tax Register (‘BTR’ in short) is not available with the revenue authorities. Instead they are only maintaining a Settlement Register. Even though the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit, to construct a building in the said property, the 6 th respondent has directed the petitioner to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Airport Authority of India and get the classification of the property changed from ‘nilam’ to ‘purayidam’ in the revenue records. Despite repeated efforts made by the petitioner, nothing has happened. The inaction of the respondents tantamount to an infringement of the petitioner’s right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 2. In the statement filed by the 4 th respondent, it is contended that, as per the Thandaper Register, the petitioner is the holder of 14.03 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.946/1 in Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. In the Thandaper Register, the petitioner’s property is noted as ‘purayidam’. But, the entry is erroneous. However, in the Settlement Register the property is rightly classified as ‘nilam’. In the possession certificate produced by the petitioner, there is no indication regarding the type of the land. It is only when a property is classified as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’ as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' in short), will the property be included in the data bank. In the possession certificate produced by the petitioner, there is no indication regarding the type of the land. It is only when a property is classified as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’ as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' in short), will the property be included in the data bank. The land owners whose properties are not included in the data bank can avail the privilege of converting the land from ‘nilam’ to ‘purayidam’ by submitting an application in Form 6 under the Act. Resurvey has not been completed in Kadakampally Village. Therefore, the BTR is not available. In the absence of the BTR, the Settlement Register is to be relied on. Digitization of the records in the Kadakampally Village was done based on the settlement records. In the relis data, the property is categorized as ‘nilam’. The Village Officer has the competence to correct the mistake in the Settlement Register or BTR. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 3. In the statement filed by the 6 th respondent-Corporation, it is contended that the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit on 11.09.2024 through its K-Smart Portal, to construct a commercial building. On an inspection of the file, it was found that the property is classified as ‘nilam’ in the land records. The petitioner’s application for building permit is incomplete, as he has not produced the No Objection Certificates from the Airport Authority, the Pollution Control Board and the Department of Fire and Safety. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit refuting the assertions in the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent and the statement filed by the 6 th respondent. He has reiterated that his property was classified as ‘purayidam’ three decades back. The documentary evidence substantiates the said fact. In Binu vs. The District Collector [2023:KER:29101], this Court has held that BTR has statutory primacy over the Settlement Register under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 , and the Rules framed thereunder. The principles laid down in Binu ’s case, safeguards the landowner’s property from being arbitrarily reclassified on the basis of the outdated records. The petitioner’s property has not been included in the data bank prepared under the Act and the Rules. Exts.P1 to P6 documents unambiguously reveal that the property is ‘purayidam’. There is no necessity for the petitioner to file a Form 6 application. The petitioner’s property has not been included in the data bank prepared under the Act and the Rules. Exts.P1 to P6 documents unambiguously reveal that the property is ‘purayidam’. There is no necessity for the petitioner to file a Form 6 application. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent. 6. The question is whether the description of the property in the Thandaper account will take precedence over the Settlement Register. 7. The petitioner had purchased the property on 20.10.1987 i.e., much prior to the coming into force of the Act on 12.08.2008. 8. In Exts.P2 to P4 possession certificates issued between 1989-2000, the petitioner’s property has been described as ‘land’. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s property has not been classified as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’ or included in the data bank prepared under the Act. Ext.P6 Thandaper Register establishes that the property is classified as ‘purayidam’, and the petitioner is remitting land tax for the property described as ‘land’, which as evidenced by Ext.P7 land tax receipt. 9. The 4 th respondent alleges that the petitioner’s property is erroneously described as ‘purayidam’ in the Thandaper Register, and is correctly described as ‘nilam’ in the Settlement Register. Hence, even if the petitioner’s property is not included in the data bank as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’, the same can only be treated as unnotified land. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit a Form 6 application as per the provisions of the Act, to change the nature of the property in the revenue records. 10. Hence, even if the petitioner’s property is not included in the data bank as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’, the same can only be treated as unnotified land. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit a Form 6 application as per the provisions of the Act, to change the nature of the property in the revenue records. 10. While considering an identical question, whether the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the Act is to be followed to change the nature of the property classified before the commencement of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court in The District Collector and others vs. Thangal Kunju and others [2025:KER: 69825] , after relying on the decisions in Jasmin v. District Collector, Collectorate Thiruvananthapuram [2025 KHC OnLine 939], and Indira v. Sub Collector [ 2020 (4) KLT 635 ] , has held that the BTR prepared under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules is a vital statutory document and the entries thereon cannot be simply ignored by the revenue authorities to proceed adversely against the parties merely on the ground that the Settlement Register describes the property as ‘nilam’ or ‘wetland’. Rule 2(1)(e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules which states that BTR includes the Settlement Register as well as the Supplementary Basic Tax Register, was also considered and it was held that the Rules never intended to unsettle any entry in the BTR, even prior to its promulgation in 2018. It was also observed that there is no substantive provision in the Land Tax Act governing the above aspect. However, if there is an inconsistency between the Settlement Register and the BTR, it is the entry in the BTR that has to be followed by the revenue authorities. This Court deprecated the revenue authorities for merely asserting that the entries made in the revenue records are a mistake or erroneous. It was further observed that if the revenue officials have a case that, notwithstanding the description of the property in the BTR as ‘purayidam’, if the natural lying of the land shows it to be a nilam or wetland, then it is open for the revenue authorities to proceed in accordance with law to include such property in the data bank. 11. 11. In the instant case, the 4 th respondent asserts that as resurvey has not been conducted in the concerned village, the BTR has not been prepared. The respondents have digitized the records based on the Settlement Register, wherein the petitioner’s property is described as ‘nilam’. 12. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner is remitting tax based on the Thandaper account, which is evident from Exts.P6 and P7 documents. As long as the BTR is not prepared, the Thandaper account has to be treated as the revenue record and the same was prepared much before the Settlement Register. Therefore, the principles laid down in Thangal Kunju’s case squarely apply to the case at hand because Thandaper Register is akin to the BTR until the BTR is prepared. Hence, I have no doubt in my mind that the Thandaper Register takes precedence over the Settlement Register and the petitioner’s property is to be treated as land until and unless the same is reclassified by the respondents as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’ and included in the data bank as per the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules. 13. As the petitioner’s property is described as land in the possession certificate from 1989 onwards, which is much before the coming into force of the Act and further that the petitioner is paying land tax based on the Thandaper Register, I hold that there is no necessity for the petitioner to submit a Form 6 application, to get the property excluded from the data bank. In the above background, I quash Ext.P14 possession certificate to the extent it has classified the petitioner’s property as ‘nilam’, and direct the respondents to accept tax from the petitioner treating the property as ‘purayidam’. Nonetheless, this judgment shall not preclude the respondents 2 to 5 to initiate steps to include the property in the data bank, as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules. Consequently, I also direct the 6 th respondent to process the petitioner’s application for building permit, in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the petitioner submits the No Objection Certificates from the Airport Authority, the Pollution Control Board and the Department of Fire and Safety as mentioned in the statement filed by the 6 th respondent, but without insisting a conversion order under the Act. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.