The court emphasizes that prior applications should not be subject to new rule enactments without addressing existing entitlements derived from previous regulations.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.16923/2018, on various grounds.

2. According to the appellant, they were allotted an extent of 176 cents of land in “Coir Park – I”, Cherthala - as limpid from Ext.P1 order, under the provisions of the Rules for the Allotment of Land in Development Plots on Hire Purchase Basis, 1970 (“1970 Rules” for short). They say that pursuant thereto, they were favoured with Ext.P2 agreement, which was prepared as per the “1970 Rules” and that they thereupon, paid Rs.17,85,679/-, which was the total sum of the land value fixed therein; consequent to which they preferred Ext.P3 representation on 11.10.2016 to the competent Authority, seeking that the “Patta” qua the land be issued in their favour. They allege that, however, since no action was taken by the Authority until 2018, they preferred the writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue them the “Patta”, but that the same has now been virtually dismissed by the learned Single Judge, though leaving liberty to them to prefer a fresh representation before the Government, for the singular reason that pending the writ petition, “the Kerala Government Land Allotment and Assignment for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2023 (for short “2023 Rules”) had come into effect. They say that the findings of the learned Single Judge are untenable and unlawful; and hence that they have been constrained to approach this Court.

3. The facts involved in this case are not greatly in dispute, as we have discerned from the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant - Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil) and Sri.B.S.Syamanthak – learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader did not contest that the entire value of the land had been paid by the appellant prior to the filing of the writ petition; but his argument was that, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, once the “2023 Rules” came into force, any action even on Ext.P3 representation of the appellant could have been done only within its ambit and not otherwise.

5. Au contraire, Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), argued that this is not a case where the afore contention of the learned Government Pleader would obtain any merit because, all obligations between the parties were completed prior to the year

2018; and thus the rights of his client over the property had become fully vested. He contended that, when his client had applied for the “Patta” as per the “1970 Rules” as early as in the year 2016 - much before the “2023 Rules” had ever been in contemplation - the denial of such relief to them, solely since the latter Rules had come into effect is impermissible.

6. When we go through the impugned judgment, we see that, as rightly argued by Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), the learned Judge has entered a finding that the Government is authorised to act under the “2023 Rules” because the “1970 Rules” have been fully superseded by it and also because the latter Rules clearly contain a stipulation that all further amendments would also apply.

7. We have little doubt that the proposition stated by the learned Single Judge in an abstract sense is without error. 8. However, there are certain specific factual circumstances in this case, which appear not to have been noticed or adverted to.

9. The counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition is available, wherein, the said Authority explains that it is not merely the payment of the hire purchase value which is the sole det