When applications are made before a specific cut-off date but permissions are granted after that date due to administrative delays or processes beyond applicants' control, they should not be subject to new stringent requirements introduced after their initial application date.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions hold property in Nattakom Village in Kottayam Taluk of Kottayam District. The petitioners submitted Ext.P3 applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to use their land for non-agricultural purposes. Such applications were filed invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

2. The petitioners state that considering Ext.P3 applications, the Revenue Divisional Officer has now passed Ext.P2 orders granting permission to the petitioners to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.

3. As the petitioners had to change the nature of the land in Revenue Record in the light of the KLU orders, the petitioners submitted applications invoking the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to revise the rate of basic tax of the land and to make necessary additions in the Basic Tax Register and other Revenue Records.

4. The petitioners state that acting upon such Form-A applications, the Tahsildar has now issued Ext.P4 communications stating that the petitioners have to comply with the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

5. Counsel for the petitioners urged that since the petitioners have obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, the petitioners cannot be driven to satisfy the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The issue has been decided by this Court in the judgment in Thomas George vs. State of Kerala, 2020 (4) KLT 650.

6. Government Pleader entered appearance for the respondents and resisted the writ petitions. The Government Pleader denied all the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petitions. On behalf of the respondents, the Government Pleader submitted that on and from 30.12.2017, if any applications are to be made for changing the nature of the land in Revenue Records, the provisions of the Act, 2008 will apply and the petitioners will have to resort to the provisions of the Act, 2008. This is not a case where the Orders under KLU were passed prior to the introduction of Section 27A in the Act, 2008. Therefore, the stand taken by the Tahsildar is justified. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, contended the Government Pleader.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

8. In these writ petitions, it is an admitted position that the applications for permission to use land for non-agricultural purposes were submitted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 prior to 31.12.2017, before the introduction of Section 27A in the Act, 2008. Orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2023. This Court considered the issue as to whether in such circumstances the applicants should be driven to resort to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In Thomas George (supra), in paragraph 10 of the judgment, this Court held as follows:

“So also, the directions and orders in Ext.P2 judgment have also become final and conclusive inter-partes. Even in a case where R.6(2) application is filed before the cut of date of 30.12.2017, then notwithstanding the fact that orders may not have been passed on such application before the cut of date, still this Court has held that such a party is legally entitled to get such an application filed prior to the cut of date of 30.12.2017 considered strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in R.6(2) of the K.L.U. Order and in such a case the party cannot be mulcted to face the rigorous procedure and to pay the higher amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including S.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder. In such a case, this Court has also held consistently that where the party gets orders or permission under R.6(2) of the K.L.U. Order, then he is equally entitled to maintain an application under S.6A of