Applications for land conversion submitted before the cut-off date are not subject to the new conditions imposed by the Amendment Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 21.24 Ares comprised in Re.Sy. No.709/2 of Manjoor Village in Vaikom Taluk, which he obtained as per settlement deed No.1436 of 2008 of S.R.O., Kaduthuruthy. The said property was lying as a purayidam and in the Ext.P1 possession certificate issued on 27.01.2010 the description of the said property is as such. However, later, some corrections were carried out in the revenue records and the property was shown as ‘Nilam’. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application on 20.05.2015, under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order seeking permission to use the said property for the some other purposes. Even though the said application was initially rejected by the 3^rd respondent, after several rounds of litigations, the matter was again reconsidered by the 3^rd respondent and it ultimately culminated in Ext.P9 order by which the relief sought by the petitioner was allowed and the permission was granted to the petitioner to convert the property. The aforesaid order is dated 19.05.2022.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P9 order, the petitioner was issued with a possession certificate as evidenced by Ext.P11, showing the class of land as ‘wetland’. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12, requesting the respondents to show the description of the property as garden land, in the light of Ext.P9 order. As the said request was not considered, this writ petition was submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit.P11 possession certificate issued by the 1^st respondent classifying the same as wet land.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1^st respondent to issue possession certificate relating to the land mentioned in Exhibit.P11 as purayidam land taking note of the issuance of Exhibit.P10 basic tax receipt showing the classification of the land as purayidam.

iii. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents And

iv. To pass such other orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

3. A statement was submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. According to them, in the old revenue records the property is shown as ‘Nilam’. It is also averred that the 2^nd respondent had conducted a visit to the property of the petitioner and it was seen that the property was reclaimed and rubber cultivation was going on in the property. It is also averred that the rubber trees seems to be 15 years old. Along with rubber trees there were coconut and mahogany trees in the property. It was also stated that there is no paddy cultivation going on in the adjacent properties too. However, it was further stated that as the property is shown as ‘Nilam’ in the old revenue records, in the light of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 by which Section 27A was brought into force, the petitioner has to comply with the conditions stipulated in the said provisions for changing the nature of the land by submitting an application in this regard and to pay the amounts contemplated therein.

4. Heard Sri.G.Hariharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt Preetha K.K, the learned Government Pleader for the State.

5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is required to comply with the conditions imposed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 for getting the property of the petitioner converted as garden land. It is pointed out that, the issue raised by the petitioner in this regard is covered in his favour as per the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court inTahsildar v. Renjith George [2024 KLT OnLine 3102].

6. On going through the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in