Prospective land conversion regime cannot reopen earlier permission; revenue records may be corrected without a fresh Section 27A order.

An application for non-paddy use made before Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force could not be compelled to be treated under that later regime, because the amendment operated prospectively and the earlier permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 remained valid. Where land had already been validly permitted for other use under the earlier order, Section 27C did not apply; the proper course was correction of revenue records and reassessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. A fresh order under Section 27A could not be insisted upon.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application made prior to 30.12.2017 for permission to use land for non-paddy purposes could be compelled to be treated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. (ii) Whether the Tahsildar could refuse correction of revenue entries and reassessment by insisting upon a fresh order under Section 27A and by invoking Section 27C of the Act, 2008.

Issue (i): Whether an application made prior to 30.12.2017 for permission to use land for non-paddy purposes could be compelled to be treated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

Analysis: The landowner had applied for permission under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before Section 27A came into force. The provision introduced in the 2008 Act was held to operate prospectively, and the later amendment could not govern applications already submitted and decided under the earlier regime. The competent authority under the applicable law at the relevant time remained the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Land Utilisation Order.

Conclusion: The application was not required to be processed under Section 27A, and the earlier permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 remained valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tahsildar could refuse correction of revenue entries and reassessment by insisting upon a fresh order under Section 27A and by invoking Section 27C of the Act, 2008.

Analysis: Section 27C was held to apply only where conversion is permitted under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of the 2008 Act. It did not govern land already permitted to be used for other purposes under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. In such a case, the proper course was reassessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and appropriate entries in the revenue records. A direction to obtain a fresh order under Section 27A was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Tahsildar could not insist on a fresh Section 27A order, and correction of records with reassessment under Section 6A was permissible.

Final Conclusion: The statutory authorities were bound to act on the permission already obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and the impugned demand for a further order under the 2008 Act was unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi: A later amendment creating a new permission regime for unnotified land operates prospectively and cannot be used to reopen or reclassify permissions lawfully obtained under the earlier land utilisation regime; where conversion was validly permitted under that earlier regime, revenue records may be updated and tax reassessed under the land tax law, but a fresh permission under the later statute cannot be insisted upon.

---