Existing construction and prior land conversion need expedited review per established legal standards.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to change the entry regarding the petitioner’s plot, 0.0809 Hectares of land comprised in Block No. 161, Re-Survey No. 45 (Old Survey No. 253/2B) of Palakkad-I Village, Palakkad Taluk & Palakkad District in the basic tax register as garden land/dry land;

II. Declare that inasmuch as the petitioner’s plot is converted and used for construction, prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008, he could also seek change of records of BTR in respect of the subject property without making any application as envisaged under section 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 Exhibit-P3 application on merits without the petitioner being directed to make any application in terms of section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008;

IV. To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which is 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.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner along with his brother is the absolute owner in possession of 0.0809 Hectares of land comprised in Block No.161, Re-Survey No.45 of Palakkad-I Village, Palakkad Taluk is the submission. According to the petitioner, his plot stands already converted prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 (for short “Act 2008”). When the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the 2^nd respondent in accordance to Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act in Form-A, requesting to change the assessment regarding the plot as Purayidam / dry land, the 2^nd respondent insisted that the petitioner has to do the needful as per Section 27A of the Act 2008 or he will get order in accordance to the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

Hence, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The petitioner relied the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Shaji N.T. (2025 KHC Online 1118). It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“12. In the instant case, the residential building occupies almost the entire extent of the land. The construction was undertaken with permission, duly assessed for building tax, and therefore cannot be considered unauthorised.

13. This Court in Global Education Trust (supra) has categorically held that the mere absence of an order under the KLU Order does not render such construction illegal. Accordingly, we are not suggesting that the procedure under S.27A of the Paddy Land Act can be dispensed with in all cases where a KLU Order is obtained. What is being clarified is that where construction was completed and the land was already put to lawful use prior to 30.12.2017, and where the building has been recognised by both the local authority and the revenue department, S.27A(1) of the Paddy Land Act has no application.”

5. According to the petitioner, there is an existing building in the property and the property is converted even before the enactment of Act 2008. The petitioner produced Ext.P2 building certificate, which shows that the building is 29 year old as on 2025. If that be the case, there can be a direction to consider the Form-A application in the light of Shaji’s case (supra).

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 in the light of the princip