JUDGMENT : These two writ petitions (civil) are disposed of on the basis of common judgment as identical issue is raised in these cases. W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 is taken as a lead case for the purpose of convenience. 2. The case set up in the W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 is as follows : That the petitioner is the Director of ‘SNEHA SISHRUSHALAYAM’ which is a registered charitable society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, scientific and Charitable Societies Act. The petitioner is the holder and in possession of 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land in Cheranallor village. The 1st respondent District Collector had issued Ext.P1 KLU Order and granted permission, to utilize the above mentioned land covered by T.P.No.8124 of Cheranallor Village, for other purposes with some conditions. Later vide Ext.P3 Judgment the condition No.4 in Ext.P1 order was set aside by this Court and also directed the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P2 application and consider it in the light of Panchayath V.Mariumma, [ 2015(2) KLT 516 ], and issue appropriate orders by directing necessary additional entries in the BTR and revenue records, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P5 order by directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the scheduled fee prescribed as per Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land rules. Ext.P5 order is illegal and against Ext.P3 Judgment and also against Judgments in Shanmugam V. District Collector 2019(2) KLT 45 , and Tahsildar v. Renjith George, 2020(2) KLT 13 . 3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) No. 8645/2020 with the following prayers : (i) “issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same. (ii) Declare that 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of lands comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.418/7, 418/8, 419/1, 419/2, 421/7, 421/8, 418/11, in Block No.4 of Cheranalloor Village, covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor village, Kanayannoor Taluk is 'Puryidam/Dry land. (ii) Declare that 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of lands comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.418/7, 418/8, 419/1, 419/2, 421/7, 421/8, 418/11, in Block No.4 of Cheranalloor Village, covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor village, Kanayannoor Taluk is 'Puryidam/Dry land. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 Application and issue an order, on the basis of Ext.P1 and Ext.P3, to make necessary additions and correction in the BTR and revenue records with respect to 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.418/7, 418/8, 419/1, 419/2, 421/7, 421/8, 418/12, 418/11, in Block No.4 of Cheranalloor Village, covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor Village, Kanayannoor Taluk as “Puryidam/Dry land. (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue order/direction to the 3rd respondent Village Officer, Cheranalloor Village, to make the corrections in the BTR and other revenue records with respect to 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor Village as “Puryidam/Dry land. (v) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petitioner.” 4. Heard Sri.P.K.Soyuz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for all the respondents. 5. There are no serious factual disputes that the subject property of the petitioner involved in this case was converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ long prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). Further, there is no dispute that the petitioner had in fact filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 on 3.11.2017 (referred to as paper No.1 in Ext.P1) before the 1st respondent District Collector. This Court as per judgment dated 15.11.2017 rendered in W.P.(C.) No.36717/2017 filed by the petitioner herein and directed the respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on the said application dated 3.11.2017 filed by the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 regarding the request of the petitioner for conversion of the subject property as ‘purayidom’ or ‘garden land’ and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes etc. It appears that the 1st respondent District Collector has passed the impugned Ext.P1 proceedings dated 13.12.2018 allowing the request of the petitioner under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 for conversion of the subject property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ and for its use for any nonagricultural purposes, but with a rider as per condition No.3 thereof that the petitioner will also have to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and obtain formal orders under Sec.27 A(1) of the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and thus to pay the higher amounts stipulated as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which came into force on 30.12.2017 and the consequential amended Rules framed under the provisions of the amended Act. 6. The said condition No.4 in Ext.P1 was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C.) No.19454/2019 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 11.10.2019 has finally disposed of W.P.(C.) No.19454/2019 with a categoric finding that the said impugned condition No.4 imposed by the 1st respondent District Collector in Ext.P1 is illegal, ultravires and unenforceable inasmuch as it is beyond any dispute that the subject property was converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ much prior to coming into force of the 2008 Act and further as the petitioner has submitted requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order on 3.11.2017 which is prior to 30.12.2017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof. 7. 7. In that regard, it has been held therein that it is well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2019 (3) KLT 838 ] that where the subject property has been converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 has been preferred by the party concerned for conversion of the subject property on the basis of that rule, prior to 30.12.2017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has introduced Sec.27A thereof, then such a party is entitled to get his case considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Rule (2) of the KLU order, 1967 and in such a case, the respondents do not have the jurisdiction or competence to stipulate that the said party should undergo the rigorous proceedings in terms of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof and though in such a case, where the party has filed the requisite KLU application before 30.12.2017, then he or she cannot be compelled to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the provisions of Sec.27A and the amended provisions of the Rules. Accordingly, this Court has quashed the said impugned condition No.4 in Ext.P1. Thus, now petitioner has obtained the requisite permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order for conversion of the subject property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment has also specifically directed that such a party like the petitioner has preferred the said Rule 6(2) KLU application before 30.12.2017 is also legally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for getting the subject property so as to subject the property to fresh assessment/re-assessment for securing additional entries in the BTR which shows the property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘Nilam’ or ‘paddy land’ and in the light of the dictum in that regard was so categorically held and declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)]. 8. 8. The case has taken further interesting turns and it appears that the misfortune of the petitioner has not stopped in spite of the interdiction made by this Court in the proceedings as per Ext.P3. The application in that regard for seeking fresh assessment/re-assessment of the subject property under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 was already preferred by the petitioner as Ext.P2 petition dated 16.8.2019 which is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar. In spite of the specific directions and findings made by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment and for reasons which are totally unknown to this Court and to say the least, an aspect which is startling to this Court, the 2nd respondent Tahsildar has again committed the very same mistake, which was rectified by this Court in Ext.P3 and has ordered as per the impugned Ext.P5 undated proceedings holding that the petitioner can secure the benefit of the fresh assessment/re-assessment for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the correct nature of the property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ only if he pays the higher amounts as stipulated in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended Rules framed thereunder, more particularly Rule 12(17) thereof. 9. 9. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2019 (3) KLT 838 ], Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2019 (2) KLT 262 ], Salim v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (3) KLT 604 (DB)] LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] that in a case where the subject property has been converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the party concerned has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for conversion of the property and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes, before 30.12.2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec. 27A thereof), then the statutory revenue authorities are obliged the duty to treat such a case strictly within the purview of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 and in such a case, the party cannot be mulcted to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act including Sec. 27A thereof, which has come into force on 30.12.2017 and the amended Rules framed thereunder. Further, it has also been categorically held by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court as in Mariumma’s case (supra) [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and Renjith's case (supra) [ 2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] that in such a case where the property holder has filed application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order before 30.12.2017, then the party is also equally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘nilam’ or ‘paddy land’ and without having to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec. 27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder. 10. 10. In spite of this well settled rulings and in spite of the specific directions issued in Ext.P3 judgment, this Court is totally at a loss to understand as to how the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, could dare to defy the authority of this Court and to violate the well settled dictum laid down by this Court in a series of rulings and make parties like the present petitioner constantly approach this Court. These are matters which are well settled and driving litigants like the petitioner very frequently to this Court, is in a way causing huge drainage on the precious resources and time of this Court. A matter like this could have been easily resolved by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, at least after the rendering of Ext.P3 judgment. Indeed, thinkers have always said that the history often repeats first as a tragedy and then as a farce. In this case, the violation of the dictum laid down by this Court has occurred first at the hands of the 1st respondent District Collector, who is the head of the District Administration and head of the Revenue Administration of the District. Secondly, the 2nd respondent, who is the sub-ordinate official is also repeating the said history of violating the law by passing an order in the nature of Ext.P5 and that too, in spite of Ext.P3 judgment, which is the judgment rendered by this Court inter parties, in which the petitioner herein is the writ petitioner therein and the 2nd respondent Tahsildar herein is the 7th respondent therein. 11. If routine cases like this which are well settled by the judicial rulings of this Court are considered and treated like this, then the litigants cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court. Apart from the unnecessary drainage of precious judicial resources and time of this Court, such attitude of the respondents would also lead to the inevitable consequence of the challenge to the authority of rule of law, which would also result ultimately in people loosing faith in the system. These are not the matters arising out of any prestige of this Court. These are matters which are basic and elementary to the very concept of a legal system governed by rule of law and constitutionalism. If revenue officials like the respondents can violate the law with impunity like this, the consequences are deleterious. These are not the matters arising out of any prestige of this Court. These are matters which are basic and elementary to the very concept of a legal system governed by rule of law and constitutionalism. If revenue officials like the respondents can violate the law with impunity like this, the consequences are deleterious. This Court hopes and expects that the 1st respondent District Collector, who is the head of the District and who is stated to be a young officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service would rise up to the occasion and ensure that necessary strict directions and guidelines are issued at least to the revenue officials within his district to ensure that breaches of this nature do not occur and cases of this nature are treated strictly in terms of the judicial dicta laid down by this Court in the aforestated judgments. 12. These are all matters within the discretion of the respondents, more particularly, 1st respondent and if the respondents have concern for the future of rule of law in this Country, this Court would only hope that the 1st respondent would rise up to the occasion and ensure that there is strict adherence to rule of law, so that cases of this nature are avoided and so that the parties could get due justice from the revenue administration itself. More often than not, it appears that there is a misconception that justice is to be rendered only by the courts of law. There cannot be anything more further from the truth from this. Justice essentially means rendering unto another what is due unto him or her. This is the duty cast on every citizen and also on every entity of jurisdiction and governance. The duty and function to do justice is cast not merely on the judiciary but also on all organs of the State. It is only a microscopic component of the great ocean of justice that could be dealt with by the judicial organ of the State. Thinkers and philosophers have also observed that the only thing that cannot be deconstructed is justice and if the element of justice is taken away, then it can only be to the peril of our civilised society. Therefore, the revenue administration is also under the bounden obligation to act fairly and justly and in accordance with law. Thinkers and philosophers have also observed that the only thing that cannot be deconstructed is justice and if the element of justice is taken away, then it can only be to the peril of our civilised society. Therefore, the revenue administration is also under the bounden obligation to act fairly and justly and in accordance with law. This Court is not now certain as to whether these words observed by this Court hereinabove are would be in vain or not. Whether these words could incarnate in flesh would depend upon the response of the respondent administration. 13. Accordingly, it is only to be ordered that the impugned directions in Ext.P5 issued by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar that the petitioner should necessarily pay the higher amounts as conceived in terms of the provisions contained in the amended provisions of 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder, more particularly, Rule 12(17) thereof, is illegal, ultravires and unenforceable in view of the abovesaid aspects and it is accordingly, ordered and declared. Consequently, it is ordered that the said impugned restrictions imposed by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar in Ext.P5 proceedings directing the petitioner to pay the higher amounts in terms of the said amended provisions of the Act and the Rules, will stand set aside and quashed. The matter will stand remitted to the 2nd respondent Tahsildar for action forthwith and 2nd respondent should immediately pass necessary revised orders, regarding the fresh assessment/re-assessment of the subject property directing the 3rd respondent Village Officer to immediately make alterations in the existing BTR of the subject property by making additional entries in the BTR to show the subject property covered by Ext.P5 as garden land/purayidom/dry land instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land etc without insisting for any payment as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended Rules. The necessary action in this regard should be duly done by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 14. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent Village Officer should make out such alterations by making necessary additional entries in the BTR as above-directed within one week from the date of receipt of the papers from the 2nd respondent as afore-directed. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand disposed of. 15. 14. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent Village Officer should make out such alterations by making necessary additional entries in the BTR as above-directed within one week from the date of receipt of the papers from the 2nd respondent as afore-directed. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand disposed of. 15. The case set up in the W.P.(C.) No.8307/2020 is as follows : That the petitioners' property is a converted property prior to the year 2008. The petitioners obtained Exhibit P2 order from the 2nd respondent under section 6(2) of the KLU order to use the property for other purpose other than agriculture. After Exhibit P2 order, the petitioners filed Exhibit P3 application along with form A under Sec. 6A of the Land Tax Act to the st respondent. After Exhibit P5 judgment in the contempt proceedings, the st respondent passed Exhibit P6 order directing the petitioners to pay the 25% of the schedule fee for to change the nature of the property in the BTR as provided under Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. 16. In the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) No. 8307/2020 with the following prayers : “(a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order to quash the Exhibit P6 order issued by the 1st respondent. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction to the 1 st respondent to make changes in nature of the property as dry land in the Basic Tax Register based on Ext. P3 application forthwith. (c) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 17. Heard Sri.T.K.Ajithkumar (Valath), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for all the respondents. 18. The matter in issue in this case is broadly identical and similar to that raised and decided in W.P.(C) No.8645/2020. The reasonings given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment in W.P.(C) No.8645/2020 will govern this case as well. 18. The matter in issue in this case is broadly identical and similar to that raised and decided in W.P.(C) No.8645/2020. The reasonings given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment in W.P.(C) No.8645/2020 will govern this case as well. In this case, it can be seen from Ext.P2 proceedings that the petitioner has indeed filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 on 2.5.2017 before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, which is before 30.12.2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has included Sec.27A thereof). Further, the petitioner has also secured Ext.P2 order dated 2.7.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent RDO getting permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 for conversion of the subject property as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes. The only difference in the facts and circumstances of this case is that in Ext.P2 order passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order by the 2nd respondent RDO has not insisted that petitioner should pay the higher amounts in terms of Sec.27A of the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Whereas the 1st respondent Tahsildar has stipulated in the impugned Ext.P6 order that for securing fresh assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for making additional entries in the BTR to show the correct nature of the property as garden land/purayidom/dry land, the petitioner should necessarily pay the higher amounts in terms of the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the main issue raised in this case is broadly identical or similar to that raised in W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 in which judgment has been rendered as hereinabove. 19. Accordingly, it is ordered that the reasonings given by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 for interfering with the said order impugned therein issued by the respondent Tahsildar therein in the matter of fresh assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 could also apply equally in this case as well, so that the writ petition is avoided. 20. 20. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 15.2.2020 rendered by the 1st respondent Tahsildar directing the petitioner to pay higher amounts in terms of the amended provisions of the Act including Sec. 27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder as a condition precedent for securing fresh assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner will consequently stand remitted to the 1st respondent Tahsildar for consideration and decision afresh. 21. Since indisputably, the property has been converted as garden land/ purayidom much prior to 12.8.2008 which is the date of coming into force of the 2008 Act and as the petitioner has submitted the requisite Rule 6(2) KLU application before the cut off date of 30.12.2017, it is only to be ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of re-assessment/fresh assessment in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 as has been conclusively held so by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk v. Renjith [ 2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] etc. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1st respondent will immediately take up for consideration the request made by the petitioner in Ext. P3 application and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through the authorised representative/counsel, if any will pass necessary orders of fresh assessment/re-assessment of the subject property so as to show additional entries in the BTR to correctly described it as garden land/purayidom etc. instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land, without much delay, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and in accordance with the dictum laid down by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Mariumma’s case (supra) [ 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and Renjith’s case (supra) [ 2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] and without insisting for any payments made as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended Rules. Thereafter, the orders so passed by the 1st respondent shall be immediately duly communicated to the 3rd respondent Village Officer within one week. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent Village Officer will take consequential steps in the matter, without any further delay, at any rate, within one week thereafter. Thereafter, the orders so passed by the 1st respondent shall be immediately duly communicated to the 3rd respondent Village Officer within one week. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent Village Officer will take consequential steps in the matter, without any further delay, at any rate, within one week thereafter. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand finally disposed of.