JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P-3 Order to the extent the provisions of ordinance No. 26798/Leg.B2/2017/Law dated 30.12.2017 is invoked and made applicable while allowing Exhibit P-1 application and direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on the basis of Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order alone.

b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P-4 and to permit the change in the nature of use of the land without levying any fee.

c) To declare that Section 27 A of the Act is not applicable to the petitioners application which is submitted before the inclusion of provisions of amending Act 29 of 2018 in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. And d) issue such other order or direction as deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case.” (Sic)

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

10.08.2020, this Court passed the following order:

“The counsel for the petitioners would ensure that an additional copy of memorandum of this WP(C) is served on Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents today itself. The 3rd respondent RDO will get specific instructions as to whether the petitioners had submitted Ext.P1 application dated 20.9.2017 under Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, as acknowledged in Ext.P1 receipt dated 20.9.2017 and as referred to in Ext.P2 judgment before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017, and as to why the date of application filed under Rule 6 of the KLU Order has not been explicitly mentioned in Ext.P3 proceedings.

List on 18.8.2020”

3. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 application is dated 20.09.2017 and it is received on 20.09.2017. Therefore, it is before the cut of date of 30.12.2017 and the application of the petitioner is to be considered as per the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, and there cannot be any direction to comply with the direction in Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short the Act). This point is considered by this Court in detail in District Collector, Ernakulam and Others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and Others [2020 (4) KHC 394]. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“(5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section(3)."

6. On a reading of the said provision it is clear that, Section 27C applies, wherever a part of survey number of subdivision is permitted to be converted under Sections 8,9,10 or 27A of Act 2008, and in which case, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued. Therefore it is clear that, Section 27C deals with a situation where an order is passed to convert the land as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008. The rest of the provisions there under are consequential to Section 27C(1) and therefore only under the circumstances prescribed under Section 27C(1), the procedure can be followed by the Tahsildar.

7. However, it is an admitted fact that the application was submitted by the writ petitioners on the basis of the orders secured by them under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Therefore, the provisions of Section 27C have no application. The issue with respect to the alteration of the entries in the Basic Tax Register was considered by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi Vs. Jalaja Dileep [2014(1) KLT 161 = 2014 (1) KHC 96] and held that the entries contained in the Basic Tax Register cannot be changed. However, the Division Bench of this Court in Mariyumma (supra) has held that, without defacing the entry contained in the Basic Tax Register, necessary additional entries can be made o