The court established that amendments to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 do not invalidate prior applications if a new application is made under the correct provision.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners hold adjoining lands. Though the lands of the petitioners are shown in the revenue records as 'Nanja', the same have been converted as dry lands long prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (the Act). As such, the lands of the petitioners are not included in the data bank prepared under the Act. It is stated by the petitioners that their lands are situated in the heart of Calicut city with commercial buildings all around. In order to make use of the lands for construction purpose, the petitioners preferred applications for permission under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order (Kerala). The applications have been allowed. On the strength of the orders issued under the Land Utilization Order, the petitioners preferred applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act for reassessment of the lands and also for re-classification of the lands in the revenue records. It is stated by the petitioners that the said requests are not being considered. The case of the petitioners is that insofar as the classification of the lands held by them remains in the revenue records as 'Nanja', the petitioners are unable to obtain building permits from the Corporation for construction of buildings in the lands. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the second respondent to make appropriate changes in all revenue records classifying the lands of the petitioners as dry land.

2. When the matters were taken up today, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioners have preferred applications invoking Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order after Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, and therefore, the applications preferred by them under the Land Utilization Order were not maintainable and ought not have been allowed by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order. It was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the orders issued in favour of the petitioners under the Land Utilization Order, in the circumstances, were recalled, after issuing notice to the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader, however, clarified that the said orders do not preclude the petitioners from preferring applications for permission under Section 27A of the Act for making use of the lands for other purposes. It was also pointed out that on obtaining orders under of the Act, the petitioners would be free to seek change of classification of the lands in the revenue records as well.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have preferred applications for permission to make use of the lands for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order after Act 29 of 2018. The learned counsel does not also dispute the proposition that the applications preferred by the petitioners under the Land Utilization Order, in the circumstances, were not maintainable.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications under Section 27A of the Act before the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if the petitioners prefer applications within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within three weeks thereafter, having regard to G.O.(Rt.) No.1166/2021/RD dated

25.02.2021.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE ds 18.03.2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24788/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.436/1999 DATED 27.6.1999 OF KOZHIKODE SUB REGISTRY.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 10491/2018 DATED 26.3.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE DATED 4.8.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DAT