The prescribed conditions under the Act and Rules do not apply to properties classified as 'purayidam' before 1967, and the description of the property as 'Nilam' was found to be illegal.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the present owner of 23.30 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.486/4 A1 and 486/4 B1 of Edathua Village. The properties are classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The properties were settled in favour of the petitioner by her husband as per settlement deed No.990/2006 dated 4.5.2006. The properties had devolved on the petitioner's husband as per gift deed No.2117/1957 dated 12.10.1957 executed by her husband's grandfather. The gift deed describes the property as a 'purayidam' as early as in 1957 and also shows that there is a building in the land.

2. The wrong entry in the BTR as 'Nilam' also continued in the notified data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee of Edathua Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the properties had been converted irreversibly even before 100 years. In order to correct the wrong entry, the petitioner submitted an application in Form No.5 before the 1st respondent on 2.3.2020. The application in Form No.9 was also submitted since lands had been converted before 1967. When action was not forthcoming, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3618/2021, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the authorities to consider and pass orders on the applications in Form Nos.5 and 9 submitted by the petitioner. When action was not being taken even after the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case No.1088/2021. By Ext.P3 order dated 3.8.2021, the 1st respondent allowed Form No.5 application and deleted 22.475 Ares of land from the data bank of Edathua Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, the 1st respondent allowed Form No.9 application as per Ext.P4 order dated 10.9.2021, imposing certain conditions. The Contempt Case was closed as per Ext.P5 judgment with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the conditions imposed in Ext.P4 order. This writ petition is filed challenging the conditions thus imposed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the direction contained in Ext.P4 to correct the revenue records classifying the property asis against Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Rules, 2008 (the Rules for short). It is also contended that the condition in Ext.P4 that if a building more than 3000 sq.ft. area is constructed, the petitioner has to pay Rs.100/-per sq.ft. is also not warranted in the light of the proviso to Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act for short).

4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext.P4 order on the basis of Ext.R1(a) circular dated 23.5.2019 which says that in order to identify properties, the classification of which has been changed on the basis of applications, the wordsshould be added before the word 'purayidam' while recording the fact in the supplementary BTR. It is also contended that since application had been filed after the coming into force of Section 27A, necessarily, the petitioner has to comply with the conditions laid down in Section 27A. It is also contended that the rule making authority, i.e., the State of Kerala is also a necessary party in the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

6. Having noticed in Ext.P4 that the properties had been converted prior to 1967, the 1st respondent should have considered the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the proviso to Section 27A(3) of the Act. As per the proviso, in cases where the land involved had been filled up or naturally filled up before 4.7.1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, no fee as stated in Section 27A(3) shall be collected. Section 27A(3) says that in cases where the application for change of nature of unnotified land is allowed, the applicants shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may be prescribed (emphasis applied). Rule 12(3) of