The court upheld the principle that legislative amendments affect applications submitted thereafter, providing clarity on how they relate to earlier submissions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction to quash the 2nd condition stipulated in Exhibit P4 order by the 1st respondent and to set aside the Exhibit P6 letter issued by the 2nd respondent.

b) To direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass order on Exhibit P5 application in the light of the decision reported in Tahsildar v. Renjith George [2025 KHC OnLine 7012] and the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in Jacob Boban v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1241] , within one month.

c) Direct the 2nd respondent to allow the Exhibit P5 application and to change the nature of the property covered by Exhibit P4 order as dry land in the Basic Tax Register.

d) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

e) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. ”

[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, the property is covered by Ext.P4 order passed in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilization Order (for short ‘KLU Order’), and it is a converted property and removed from the data bank, pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 orders, is the submission. Ext.P4 was issued by the 1^st respondent under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, to 187.16 Ares belonging to the petitioner for other purpose other than agriculture. The second condition imposed by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P4 order stating that the above order not to be treated as a permission to change the nature of the property in Basic Tax Register (for short ‘BTR’) is illegal, is the submission. Subsequent to Ext.P4 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in Form A under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act , 1961, to change the nature of the property in the BTR. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P6 letter, directing the petitioner to approach the Deputy Collector for change of the nature of the property in view of the second condition in Ext.P4 order.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Tahasildar v. Renjith George [2025 (1) KHC 271]. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the same:

“12. We do not deem it necessary to delve into the aforesaid question and determine whether the amended Act is retrospective or retroactive in effect. We say so for the reason that the Legislature has explicitly introduced the amended provisions from 30/12/2017 only. At best, the new conditions inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30/12/2017. In other words, all those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme.

13. Our above understanding of the amended provisions, is also in conformity with S.27A(13) of the Amending Act, which mandates that the applications moved after the Amending Act has come into force, shall be decided as per the newly amended provisions. This provision, in our considered opinion clarifies by implication that such applications which were moved before 30/12/2017, will have to be adjudicated as per the unamended Act.”

5. In the light of the same, second condition in Ext.P4 order will not stand. Therefore, second condition in Ext.P4 can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider Form A application, to facilitate the authority to reco