IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of respecting previous judgments and orders, and the impermissibility of reopening concluded judgments.

1. The petitioners challenge Ext.P15 stop memo issued on 2.2.2024 alleging contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The first petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 177.86 Ares of land made up of 62.54 Ares in Resurvey No. 86, 4022 Ares in Resurvey No. 87, 58.91 Ares in Resurvey No. 51 and 16.19 Ares in Resurvey No. 122 in Block 18 of Muttambalam Village, Kottayam Taluk having been obtained by him as per Document Nos. 1929/2006, 567/2007, 14/2020 of Kottayam Additional Sub Registrar's Office. The second petitioner is the owner in possession of 176.52 Ares of land made up of 24.60 Ares in Resurvey No. 105, 51.85 Ares in Resurvey No. 53, 34.60 Ares in Resurvey No. 54, 25 res in Resurvey No. 106 and 40.47 Ares in Resurvey No. 117 in Block No. 18 of Muttambalam Village, Kottayam Taluk having been obtained by him as per Document Nos. 2683/2006, 2684/2006, 2685/2006, 2686/2006 and 1981/2011 all of Additional Sub Registrar's Office, Kottayam. It is submitted that the properties are lying contiguous having a total extent of 354.38 Ares and the petitioners with an intention to develop the property, had applied for a building permit, which was initially rejected against which they preferred WP (C) No. 27360/2015, which was allowed as per judgment dated 17.9.2015 quashing the order of rejection and directing the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality to reconsider the application.

3. Based on the said directions, Ext.P2 building permit was issued on 18.11.2015 by proceedings of the Municipality and the same was renewed from time to time. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order), which by Ext.P6, P6(a) and Ext.P6(b) orders allowed the petitioner’s request for change of however, on condition that the petitioner pay the conversion fee as under Section 27A of the Act. The petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging that part of the order which imposed the conversion fee. The writ petition was dismissed, against which the petitioners filed WA No. 1759/2020 and by Ext P7 judgment dated 7.1.2021 the condition imposed in Ext.P6(a) and P6(b) orders were set aside noticing that the Revenue Divisional Officer had permitted utilization of the land for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations and that the petitioners are entitled to get the necessary additional entities in the Basic Tax register in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LLMC Kizhakkambalam vs. Mariyumma, 2015 (2) KLT 516 and directed that on the petitioners producing necessary orders from the RDO, corrections could be made in the revenue records concerning the changed tenure of land.

4. Under the directions in Ext.P7 judgment of the Division Bench, consequential orders Exts.P8, Ext.P9, P9(a) and P9(b) orders were passed. Exts.P10 to P10(c), the relevant tax registers show that the nature of the land was converted as garden land and land tax was collected accordingly, The petitioner had also obtained Exts.P11 P11(a) to P14(a) Development Permits which were being extended from time to time. On the strength of the above permissions, the petitioners were about to start construction when Ext.P15 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer alleging that the activities of the petitioners were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the same was issued based on Ext.P16 general directions issued by the District Collector.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government which says that the petitioner's property has been included in the data bank on 27.1.2021. They contend that even though the petitioners had obtained orders in their favour under the KLU in the year 2018, and also the entries in the revenue records were corrected, the lie and nature of the property remain as a paddy land and therefore by Ext.R3(a) the properties