The main legal point established in the judgment is that where the property has been converted prior to the 2008 Act and the application for change of land use was filed before the cut-off date, the rigorous conditions of S.27A and the amended provisions of the Act do not apply.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The case set up in this Writ petition (C) is as follows :

The present writ petition has been filed assailing Exhibit P18 order dated 10/03/2020 issued by the 4th Respondent Land Revenue Commissioner and Exhibit P11 order no. B2-6675/2017 dated 27/02/2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent RDO to the extent that it directs the petitioners to comply with the provisions of S.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is submitted that the petitioners together are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 2.05 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No. 350/1, 350/2, 351/P, 352/1, 352/2, 352/3, 352/5 and 347/1 of Irinjalakuda Village. There are many yielding trees in the plot and the said land is a pucca residential plot. There is a building standing on the said land. The land has been shown as being reclaimed prior to 1980 in Exhibit P1 data bank and vide Exhibit P1(a) steps are being taken to exclude from the data bank. However, in the basic tax register the said land has been classified as paddy land, it is urged. In April, 2017 the petitioners preferred applications to the concerned RDO seeking permission to utilize the said land for other purposes under S.6 of the KLU Order (Exhibit P2). This Court vide Exhibit P3 and other judgments directed consideration of the same after considering the reports of the LLMC/Agricultural Officer, along with the satellite map and report forwarded by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSERC). In consideration of the applications, reports were called from the Tahsildar (LR Mukundapuram) and Agricultural Officer, Irinjalakuda. It is stated that, the Agricultural Officer categorically reported that for the past 35 years no paddy cultivation has been undertaken in the land in question (Exhibit P4 series). The reports submitted by the Tahsildar in respect of all also categorically states that there is no paddy cultivation within 2 km radius of the land (Exhibit P5 series). Despite the categorical findings in the above reports, the sub-collector vide Exhibit P7 order dated 21/12/2017 refused to grant sanction under Clause 6 of the KLU Order on the ground that a convention centre has been building on the land in 2013. This Court by way of Exhibit P8 judgment dated 09/04/2018 quashed the said order and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur to reconsider the issue after providing sufficient opportunities to the parties to the lis and any other interest persons. The applications preferred by the petitioners under Clause 6 of the KLU Order were then reconsidered by the 2nd respondent RDO. During the consideration of the applications, Exhibit P9 report was submitted by the Agricultural Officer noting that there were 40 year old coconut, mango and other trees on the property. It was also recorded that the land stood completely converted. The 2nd respondent eventually passed Exhibit P11 composite order no.B2-6675/2017 dated 27/02/2019 addressed to all the petitioners. The order took note of the report of the Tahsildar recommending that the petitioners' property can be permitted to be converted and the report of the Agricultural Officer finding that for the past 35 years, the property was not cultivated. From the reference to fallow lands' in KSREC data, it was inferred that for the past 35 years the property was left uncultivated. However, the RDO inter alia directed the petitioners to pay the fees stipulated as per the 2018 Amendment to the 2008 Act and comply with the directions therein. The said order was challenged and this Court vide Exhibit P17 judgment directed the 4th respondent to consider the Exhibit P16 statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners under Clause 11 of the KLU Order 'specifically adverting to the observations and conclusions of this Court in Geo Peter and also in Ext. P13 judgment'. Unfortunately, the 4th respondent Land Revenue Commissioner vide its order dated 10/03/2020 ('Impugned Order') di