Legal applications for land conversion should consider prior use before statutory enactments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed Ext.P1 application in Form A under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act . The same is pending consideration before the 5^th respondent, is the grievance. The factual matrix is to the following effect:-

The petitioner mistakenly made an application under Section 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short the Act 2008), which was allowed. The petitioner was directed to pay the fee for such conversion. It is at this juncture that the petitioner realizes that an Order under Section 27A of the , 2008 is not required, inasmuch as, the property stood converted much prior to the introduction of the said Act in the year 2008. It is accordingly that the petitioner filed Ext.P1 under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act . Apprehending inaction on the part of the 5^th respondent, the petitioner approached this Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner as per the documents of the year 1995, 1996 and 2003. A building was constructed therein, and a factory was functioning at the subject property. These are vouched by Exts.P4 to P10. These are documents admittedly vouch the state of affairs much prior to the year 2008. In such circumstances, an Order under Section 27A is not warranted at all, is the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel would rely upon a Bench decision of this Court in Global Education Trust v State of Kerala [2020(6)KHC 1]

and State of Kerala v Shaji N J [ 2025 (7) KHC 1 ].

3. As regards the above legal question, learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to 6, has no quarrel. The 7^th respondent Municipality also would not assail the above legal question.

4. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s contentions are liable to be recognized, and it is so done. The documents, which are referred to earlier would unerringly indicate that the building has been erected and a factory was functioning in the subject property much prior to 2008, the year in which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 was introduced. That being so, the petitioner’s case is squarely within ambit of the dictum laid down in Global Education Trust (supra)

5. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P1 application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, and in accordance with the observations contained in this judgment, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 5^th respondent for compliance. In case, the 5^th respondent is disinclined to allow Ext.P1 for any reason, whatsoever, needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that an Order under Section 27A of the Act 2008 is not required in the given facts, and Ext.P1 shall be considered without reference to Ext.P3 Order and without insisting for the compliance of the same.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-