IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.14731 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9524 of 2020)

THE TAHSILDAR & ANR. … APPELLANTS Versus RENJITH GEORGE … RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.14732 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.12312 of 2020)

CIVIL APPEAL No.14733 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13489 of 2020)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.

3. The controversy herein has emanated from the applications moved by the respondent-landowners for the conversion of their ‘paddy land’ into ‘non-agricultural purpose land’. It appears that most of the respondents had moved the above-mentioned applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Some of these applications were allowed granting the conversions, while some remained pending. Meanwhile, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Bill, 2018 was passed to amend the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, `2008 Act’). The Signature Not Verified Digitalya sigmnede bynded Act came into force w.e.f 30.12.2017, as is evident from SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.05.08

16:04:15 IST Reason:

Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which reads as follows: “1(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the

30^th day of December, 2017.”

4. The dispute eventually arose when the statutory authorities rejected the pending claims for conversion of land to non-agricultural purposes primarily on the premise that the new parameters introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act (which came into force from 30.12.2017) would apply. The authorities as well as the State of Kerala, in this regard, placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer Fort, Kochi and others vs. Jalaja Dileep and another, (2015) 11 SCC 597. That was a case pertaining to the interpretation of provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, where this Court, having examined Section 18 of that Act, held that the said provision enabling the “rectification of mistake” cannot be invoked for the purpose of seeking conversion of ‘paddy land’ to ‘non-agricultural purposes’. There seems to be no quarrel about the legal position to that effect.

5. The High Court was thus called upon to analyze the legal impact and consequences of the amendment to the 2008 Act as introduced with effect from 30.12.2017.

6. Through the aforesaid Amendment Act a new definition of “change of nature of unnotified land”, was also inserted, which reads as under:

“(i) “Change of nature of unnotified land” means such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means.”

7. Similarly, in Clause (vi) of Section 2, after the words “paddy land”, the words “or unnotified land” were added.

8. The expression “unnotified land” has also been defined in Clause (xviiA) of the same provision, to mean that:

“unnotified land” means the lands within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee which have been included as paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in Village Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland under sub-section (4) of Section 5.”

9. Likewise, a new set of sections, i.e., Sections 27A to 27D have been incorporated in the Principal Act after Section 27 thereof.

10. The newly added Section 27C, inter alia, pertains to changes made in the revenue records, pursuant to the orders passed by competent Forums, and the continuous maintenance of such records. It reads as under:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivisions is permitted to be converted under sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of this Act, a new