VIJAYAGOPALAN N.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contentions urged by the petitioners are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

(3.) The specific case of the petitioners is that the subject property has been converted as garden land long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and further it is the specific case of the petitioner that Ext.P-5 application has been filed as early as on 23.01.2015 under the enabling provisions contained under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and in that regard Ext.P-11 application has also been filed on 24.11.2017 and that as both these applications have been filed much prior to 31.12.2017, which is the date on which the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, incorporating Sec.27A thereof, etc. The case of the petitioners is to be fully regulated by the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and so, none of the provisions of the 2008 Act, more particularly, Sec.27A thereof and the Rule framed thereunder can detrimentally affect the rights and claims of the petitioners, etc. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners would place serious reliance on various decisions on this Court as in Renjith K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262], Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (3) KLT 838] & Shanmugam.R and another v. District Collector, Kollam and others [2019 KHC 3521(DB)], etc.