When an application for conversion of dry land is filed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 before the implementation of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008, the application should be considered under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

1 The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 Application dated September, 2016 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking conversion of two items of properties belonging to him on the ground that the same have been remaining as dry lands for the last more than 50 years.

2 The 4th respondent rejected Ext.P8 Application by Ext.P9 Order, treating it as an Application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 holding that there is no provision for conversion for commercial purposes. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 in this Court and this Court by Ext.P15 judgment set aside Ext.P9 Order and directed the 4th respondent to take a fresh decision on Ext.P8 Application. Thereafter, the 4th respondent considered the matter again and passed Ext.P16 order holding that the remedy of the petitioner is to submit Application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 .

3 The petitioner filed appeal against Ext.P16 Order and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P20 order holding that the petitioner is free to apply under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 when Rules are framed there under. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P16 and P20 Orders and for other reliefs.

4 It is clear from Ext.P8 Application that the specific case of the petitioner is that his properties have been remaining converted for the last 50 years and that is why he sought to invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 . When Ext.P8 Application was rejected by Ext.P9, this Court set aside Ext.P9 by Ext.P15 judgment specifically directing to reconsider the application by the 4th respondent. Though in Ext.P15 judgment, this Court has not held that Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 is not applicable, since the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the Application, the necessary implication is that Ext.P8 Application is to be considered under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order without reference to Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 . But in Exts.P16 and P20 the 4th respondent as well as the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P8 Application again referring to Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 , which is clearly impermissible.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in Salim v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (3) KLT 604 ] in which it is held that when an Application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is filed before the implementation of Section 27A on 30/12/2017, the said Application is to be considered as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The said Division Bench decision is followed in the subsequent Single Bench Decision of this Court in Alex.P.Abraham & Others V. Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruvananthapuram and Others [ 2021(1) KHC 427 ] .

6 Referring to Paragraph No.6 of the Statement dated 3/06/2019 filed by the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader opposed the prayers in the writ petition contending that even for the land converted before the implementation of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, there is provision in Section 27A (3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 for giving permission without making any payment and hence the petitioner has to make Application under Section 27A .

7 In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and also in the light of the fact that this Court set aside Ext.P9 order by Ext.P15 judgment directing reconsideration of Ext.P8 Application presumably under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the above contention of the respondent is not sustainable.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed by setting aside Ext.P16 and P20 orders and directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P8 Application strictly in accordance with the provisions un