Others (2020 (6) KHC 420 : 2020 KHC OnLine 843) a learned Single Judge of this Court has held in unequivocal terms that if any Town Planning Scheme does not save the land and area for cultivation of any crops mentioned under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967, it has to be assumed that, through the process of law, power of Collector to command the holder of land to cu cultivate crops has been taken away. Anyhow while the judgment in Reliance Industries was holding the field the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (supra) taking into account the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 held that the entries made in the BTR cannot be defaced, overruling the Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (2014 (1) KHC 96 : 2014 (1) KLT 161 : ILR 2014 (1) Ker. 492 : 2014 (1) KLJ 586). Anyhow later a Division Bench of this Court in LLMC Kizhakkambalam v. Mariyumma (2015 (3) KHC 19 : 2015 (2) KLT 516 : 2015 (1) KLD 915 : 2015 (2) KLJ 861) held that without defacing the original entry in the Basic Tax Register additional entry can be made with respect to the present tenure of the land in appropriate cases and in accordance with law, which is governing the field now. We are in respectful agreement with the proposition so laid down in Mariyumma, supra , in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
