J U D G M E N T

Heard Smt.Mereena J.Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 12.23 Ares or property in Resurvey No.184/3-1 of Angamaly Village. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and notice at Ext.P1 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing the petitioner to satisfy the conversion fee as prescribed by the statute for the entire property. The petitioner has sought to challenge the notice at Ext.P1, essentially contending that she was entitled for the benefit of exemption at least till 25 cents on the basis of the exemption provided by the Government. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Moushmi Ann Jacob v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (5) KHC 339 ]

3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that the judgment sought to be relied on by the petitioner has since been reversed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [ 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 235 ] Theref