1. The petitioners are the father and sons, who are the absolute owners in possession of 0.6601 Hectares of land comprised in Block No.34, Re - Survey Nos.77/36, 80/17, 80/19, 80/3 and 81/13 of Pudussery Central Village in Palakkad District. The said properties were originally held by one Gopakumar and one V.K Jayasree.

2. In the year 2009, the predecessors in interest of the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent, seeking permission for conversion of the land from paddy land to garden land, invoking the powers of the 1st respondent under Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The said application culminated in Ext.P4 order dated 18/02/2009, in which it was found that the said properties have not been cultivated for the past 50 years, and the same was used for non - agricultural purposes. However, a positive order was not passed, and instead, the applicants were directed to confirm whether the land would fall under the purview of Act 28/2008, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act'), from the competent authorities. Subsequently, as the properties were already included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, the petitioners who have purchased the property from the persons referred to above have submitted three separate applications in Form 5, which culminated in Exts.P6 to P8 orders passed by the 1st respondent. As per the same, the said applications were allowed and the properties were removed from the Data Bank.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Exts.P9 to P11 applications in Form A, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972, for reassessing the properties as garden land in the Basic Tax Register. This writ petition was submitted by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the same, seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to change the entry regarding the petitioners' plots covered by Exhibits - P1 to P3 of Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad Taluk & District in the basic tax register as garden land fit for construction purpose;
II. Declare that inasmuch as the petitioners' plots are converted on the strength of Exhibit - P4 order issued in terms of KLU, and building permit issued and constructions made, they could also seek change of records of BTR in respect of the subject property without making any application as envisaged under S.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008;
III. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Exhibits - P9 to P11 applications on merits without the petitioners being directed to make any application in terms of S.27A (3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008;
IV. To dispense with the translation of the documents in vernacular language; and
V. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. Heard, Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the light of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in The Tahasildar v. Renjith George (2025 1 KHC 271), the respondents are bound to act upon the Exts.P9 to P11 applications, without insisting for the compliance of the conditions imposed under S.27 A of the Paddy Land Act, which was introduced with effect from 30/12/2017.

6. After carefully going through the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Renjith George's case (supra), I find force in the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question as to whether applicants who have already obtained orders under the KLU order prior to the introduc