IMPORTANT POINTS
The application made by the petitioner seeking permission for conversion of his properties referred to in that order, invoking the provisions under sub-clause (2) of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, is one dated 06.11.2017, which was directed to be considered by the 1st respondent, by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2017 in W.P.(C).No.37961 of 2017. In such circumstances, while granting permission for conversion of those properties, based on an application submitted before the competent authority prior to 30.12.2017, invoking subclause (2) of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, the conditions contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 27A of the Act to set apart ten per cent of the land for water conservancy measures and also the condition regarding payment of fee under sub-section (3) of Section 27A of the Act, at the rate prescribed in sub-rule (9) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, read with the Schedule to that Rules, cannot be imposed.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 12.95 Ares of property in Survey No.1006/7A; 13.75 Ares of property in Survey No.1007/1A; and 4.05 Ares of property in Survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order dated 17.05.2018 of the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, to the extent it stipulates that the permission granted under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 should not be acted upon without effecting changes in the revenue records as per the provisions under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and for setting apart 10% of the total area of the land, by quashing condition Nos.1 and 4 in the said order. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in Section 27A and Section 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 is unconstitutional; a declaration that the conditions stipulated in Ext.P8 order that the permission granted thereby under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 would be subject to the provisions contained in Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and the conditions stipulated therein, as Condition Nos.1 and 4, to make changes in the revenue records as provided thereunder, and to set apart 10% of the total extent of the property for water conservation measures, is illegal and opposed to law; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Municipality to issue building permit to the petitioner on the basis of the application dated 03.10.2010, referred to in Ext.P3, without insisting for the fulfillment of condition Nos.1 and 4, as stipulated in Ext.P8 order.

2. On 31.05.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent Municipality. The respondents were directed to file counter affidavit within one month. This Court granted an interim stay of operation of condition No.1 in Ext.P8 order and further directed the 2nd respondent Municipality to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P8 order, as clarified by this Court in the interim order dated 31.05.2018.

3. By the order dated 29.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the Tahsildar (Land Records), Kothamangalam was impleaded as additional 3rd respondent. A memo has been filed by the learned Special Government Pleader to adopt the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in W.P. (C)No.2314 of 2018 as the counter affidavit of the official respondents in this writ petition. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, the petitioner has produced Exts.P13 and P15, which are accepted as additional documents on the side of the petitioner, by an order of this date.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent and the additional 3rd respondent, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Renji K.Paul and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Muvattupuzha and others [2019 (2) KHC 241] and Shanmugam v. District Collector [2019 (2) KLT 45].

6. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to the applicability of the provisions of Sections 27A and 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 as inserted by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, i.e., Ordinance No.41 of 2017, followed by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, i.e., Act 29