JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us challenging the judgment (3.10.2018) in the W.P. (C) No. 32042 of 2018, whereby the Court has issued direction to the authorities to consider the writ petitioner's application for conversion of user of the land, specifically under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Paddy Act’ for short). 2. The logic of the above direction for consideration under Section 27A of the Paddy Act is questioned by the appellant by referring to the earlier judgment dated 16.1.2017 (Ext.P1) in the W.P. (C) No. 40499 of 2016 wherein the litigants' writ petition was allowed by declaring that his property covered by the Ext.P9 document and situated in Block No. 23 of Resurvey No. 107/1.1.2, is neither a paddy land nor wetland, for the purposes of inclusion in the Land Data Bank, prepared under the Paddy Act. Accordingly, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (respondent No. 4) was directed to exclude the said land of the petitioner, from the Land Data Bank and to certify the same. It was also clarified that the petitioner can utilise the said certificate for approaching the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLU Order’ for short), for getting permission to utilise the land for other purposes. 3. The learned counsel Sri. P.B. Krishnan refers to the Ext.P2 to point out that the Agricultural Officer on 10.3.2017 has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner's land to the extent of 0.177 Hectares under Sy. No. 107/1 in Marampilly Village, was mistakenly included in the Land Data Bank under the Paddy Act and the certificate is being issued in terms of the Court's judgment in the W.P. (C) No. 40499 of 2016. In pursuant to the above certificate, the petitioner had filed his application on 19.4.2017 (Ext.P3) before the District Collector, Ernakulam for securing permission under clause 6(2) of the KLU Order to utilise the excluded land for other purposes. On account of the delay in consideration of the Ext.P3 application, the W.P. (C) No. 32042 of 2018 came to be filed, where the prayer was for early disposal of the Ext.P3 application. On account of the delay in consideration of the Ext.P3 application, the W.P. (C) No. 32042 of 2018 came to be filed, where the prayer was for early disposal of the Ext.P3 application. While issuing direction for disposal of the Ext.P3 application, the learned Judge however declared that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kochi should decide the application taking into account the stipulation contained in Section 27A of the Paddy Act. The appellant projects that Section 27A was inserted by the Amending Act 29 of 2018 only with effect from 30.12.2017 and therefore, the amended provisions should not be applied to the application filed by the petitioner, prior to the amendment of the Paddy Act. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. V. Tek Chand, on the other hand, cites the judgment in State of Kerala and Another vs. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 186 to contend that consideration of the application filed by the petitioner should be on the basis of the policy prevailing on the date of the consideration and not on the basis of the existing law prior to incorporation of Section 27A in the Paddy Act. The Supreme Court suggested this on the ground that unless a vested right is accrued to the applicant, the consideration of the application should be on the basis of the policy prevailing on the date of consideration. In other words, if the Act is amended, the amended provisions will apply towards consideration. 5. Having regard to the above submission, the first thing that needs to be noticed here is that the application of the petitioner was filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and application was not filed, under the Paddy Act. In such circumstances, the amendment to the Paddy Act and the resultant incorporation of Section 27A thereto could not, in our mind, apply to a consideration of the petitioner's pending application, under the KLU Order. In any case, the new provision relates to the change of nature of un-notified land under Section 27A of the Paddy Act but cannot be directed to be applied to an application, filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. 6. In any case, the new provision relates to the change of nature of un-notified land under Section 27A of the Paddy Act but cannot be directed to be applied to an application, filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. 6. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned direction of the learned single Judge in ordering consideration of the Ext.P3 application in terms of the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Act, would not be justified. To this extent, we interfere with the said direction. Consequently, a direction is issued to the RDO to consider the petitioner's Ext.P3 application in accordance with Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is ordered accordingly. 7. With the above order, the Writ Appeal stands allowed.