The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for properties converted prior to the 2008 Act amendments should be considered strictly as per the provisions contained in the Order, and the amended provisions of the 2008 Act or the Rules framed thereunder cannot be invoked against the property holder.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:-

“Petitioner is the owner in possession of 98.64 ares of property in Re-survey Block No.13, Re-Sy,238/2 of Maradu Village. Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for permitting him to use this property for other purpose other than for cultivation. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed to consider petitioner’s application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order within one month from the date of judgment. So far the authority concerned has not passed any order. Surprisingly, as per Ext.P7 notice petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.1,29,41,896/- for permitting the petitioner to use his property for other purposes. Thereafter, issued Ext.P8 notice and thereby demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,36,83,792/- instead of Rs.1,29,41,896/- demanded in Ext.P7. The petitioner’s application under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are filed before 31.12.2017 and hence the demand to remit the amount as per Section 27A of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2018 is illegal and unsustainable in law.

2. It is in the light of these factual averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:-

(i) Call for the entire records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the condition therein to deposit an amount of Rs.2,36,83,792/- i.e. the 40% of the fair value of the petitioner’s property having an extent of 98.64 ares in Re-survey No.238/2 of Maradu Village as a condition precedent for giving permission for using his property for other purposes other than for cultivation by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction;

(ii) Declare that Exts.P1 and P5 application should be considered as per the provisions of KLU Order, 1967 and in compliance with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment and not under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act (Amended), 2018, since these applications are filed much before 30.12.2017.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus and other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 4th respondent to effect consequential correction in the basic tax register based on Ext.P8 without referring to the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2018.

3. Heard Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. It is beyond any factual dispute that the subject property of the petitioner has been converted as garden land/purayidom long prior to coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. So also, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for permission for conversion of the land, as early as on 17.8.2017, which is much before 30.12.2017, which is prior to the date of coming into force of the 2018 amendments to the 2008 Act, which has incorporated the amended provisions as per Section 27A thereof, pursuant to which the Rules have also been amended. The fact that Ext.P5 application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order has been filed on 17.8.2017, is also cleared from the reading of Ext.P6 judgment dated 23.10.2017 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32723/2017 filed by the petitioner and wherein it is clear that Ext.P5 herein has been produced as Ext.P3 therein, which is the application dated 17.8.2017 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent District Collector under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. This Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, has directed the 2nd respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 within the time limit stipulated therein. Now the petitioner has been served with the impugned