Point of Law: Change of user of land - prescription made in the Rules framed in terms of Sec.27A(3) of the Amendment Act, stipulates that the amount to be paid is much lesser than the 50% of the fair value of the fee as stipulated in Sec.16 of the Ordinance which has introduced amendment as Sec.27A(3) of the Act

JUDGMENT :

As identical issue has been raised in these writ proceedings, these WP(C)s are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.

2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 16800 of 2020 are as follows:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Ext P4 and quash the same to the extent it directs to comply with the provisions of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017.

ii. Declare that The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 or The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 has no application at the time of issuing Ext P4 order.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, 1961 and make necessary changes in the entries of the revenue records And

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 16697 of 2020 are as follows:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Ext P3 and quash the same to the extent it directs to comply with the provisions of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017.

ii. Declare that The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 or The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 has no application at the time of issuing Ext P3 order.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, 1961 and make necessary changes in the entries of the revenue records And

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Heard Sri. T.P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these two cases and Sri. K.J. Mohammed Anzar, learned Senior Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for official respondents in these cases.

5. The case of the petitioners in these cases is to the effect that, the subject property concerned in these cases, though described as the nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the same has been converted as garden land/purayidam, long prior to 12.8.2008, the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (State Act 28 of 2008). Further that, there are grown up coconut trees aged more than 25 years situated in the subject properties and the subject properties have been clearly shown in the Land Data Bank prepared as per the provisions of the State Act 28 of 2008 as “claimed/converted land 10 years prior to 2008”.

6. The petitioners in these cases have submitted applications (Ext.P-3 in the former case and copy of such application has not been produced in the latter case) before the 1st respondent RDO, some time in the last week of February, 2018 or in the first week of March, 2018, seeking for statutory permission for change of user of land for any non agricultural purposes. According to the petitioners, though as on the date of submission of these applications, the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, may have been in vogue, the said ordinance was later re-promulgated twice and the last of said ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, [hereinafter referred to as “The Amendment Act, 2018”] which had retrospectively came into force on 30.12.2017. The complaint of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent RDO has issued Ext.P-4 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 in the former case and Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 in the latter case, whereby it has been ordered that the formal plea f