The scope of review under Order 47 of Rule 1 is limited and should not serve as a rehearing of matters.

ORDER

These Review Petitions have been preferred by the State seeking to review the common judgment dated 01.04.2025, directing the respective respondents to consider the applications in Form 6 and 7 filed by the respective petitioners without insisting for remittance of the fee with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.

2. I have heard Sri. Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader, as well as Sri. Peethambaran, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The only contention raised by Sri.Aswin is to the effect that, going by the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Jacob Boban [ 2024 KLT OnLine 2348 ], once the provisions of Section 27A were introduced in 2018, an application can be entertained only with reference to the provisions of the afore statute and hence, the fee also requires to be satisfied by the respective petitioners.

4. At the same time, this Court notices that in the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have specifically taken up a contention that the properties were already converted earlier to the enactment of the 2008 Act and hence, there is no question of making any remittance of the fee under Section 27A . This Court also notices that the principles laid down by the Full Bench would apply only in a situation where an application is instituted for “change of use or utilization”. A subsequent Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Shaji [ 2025 (6) KLT 83 ], has also considered the afore aspect and has clarified that the provisions of would apply only when there is proposed utilization for other purpose and the same would not get extended with respect to a property which was converted earlier.

5. With reference to the afore principles, this Court further notices the contention raised by Sri.Peethambaran that there are buildings in the property at least from 1993, as evidenced by the tax receipt produced along with the writ petitions.

6. In any event, I am of the opinion that ultimately the endeavor of Sri.Aswin is to have a rehearing of the entire matter through these Review Petitions. The scope of the Review Petition under the provisions of Order 47 of Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure is limited.

In that view of the matter, I find no merit in these Review Petitions, and they would stand dismissed.

Sd/-