JUDGMENT : As common issues arise in both these matters, these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 is taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience. 2. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 are as follows: i) Call for the entire records leading to Ext-P2 issued by respondent municipality and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order and thereby command the respondent municipality to allow the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate, de-hors the fact that the petitioner’s property described as nilam in the basic tax register. (iii) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice. 3. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.2230/2020 are as follows: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order declaring that the petitioner, who was issued Building Permits and commenced construction in terms of such Building Permits, prior to 30.12.2017 is not liable to seek permission from RDO under Section 27A of the Paddy & Wetland Act and pay fees prescribed thereunder. 2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order calling for the original records leading to Exhibit P4 and set aside the same. 3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the 1st respondent to issue Occupancy Certificate to the building covered by Exhibit P2 & P2(a) Building Permits. 4. Issue such other order as is deemed fit, just and proper to safeguard the best interest of the petitioner in the circumstance of the case.” 4. In W.P(C).No.14707/2020 the petitioner’s deceased husband was earlier granted Ext.P-1 building permit dated 31.7.2017 issued by the respondent-Secretary of the Kothamangalam Municipality for extension and additional construction for having area of 792.49 sq.m. and having total plinth area of 378.41 sq.m. and later petitioner’s husband died on 4.5.2019 and that the construction has been completed strictly in accordance with the approved plan and building permit issued by the Kothamangalam Municipality and after completing the construction, on 11.3.2019 the petitioner has submitted application for completion certificate and application for occupancy certificate. As per Rule 22(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the respondent-Municipality should have issued occupancy certificate within 15 days from the date of production of the completion certificate, it is urged. Since there was no response, the petitioner has submitted application dated 3.3.2020 under the Right to Information Act proceedings and thereupon the respondent has conveyed information as per Ext.P-3 dated 23.3.2020 informing that since the property is described as ‘wet land’ in the possession certificate in respect of the subject property, the occupancy certificate cannot be granted. It is this decision at Ext.P-3 that is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner’s counsel would place reliance on the judgment of this Court as well as the Government Circular dated 13.8.2018 issued by the Government of Kerala in the Local Self Government Department. A copy of the said Government Circular dated 13.8.2018 has been produced as Ext.P-5 in the latter W.P.(C).No.2230/2020. The said Circular bearing No.LSGD-406/RA/2018-LSGD dated 13.8.2018 issued on behalf of the State Government in the Local Self Government Department reads as follows: 6. Whereas in W.P.(C).No.2230/2020, the petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of the property having an extent of 29.07 Ares in Nedumbassery Village, Aluva Taluk covered by Ext.P-1 land tax receipt. According to the petitioner, the property was originally paddy field which was later converted as ‘garden land/purayidam’ as early as in the year 1999 and that the subject property has not been included in the land data bank prepared as per the State Act 28 of 2018. That prior owner of the property has secured Ext.P-2 building permit dated 5.6.2009 and Ext.P-2(a) building permit dated 10.9.2009 issued by the 1st respondent-Secretary of the Nedumbassery Grama Panchayath. Later, the petitioner has purchased the subject property in the year 2012 and along with the rights to construct the building as per Ext.P-2 and P-2(a) building permits which were issued in the year 2009 and construction was completed in the year 2015 as per completion certificate dated 13.8.2015 issued by the 1st respondent-Panchayath Secretary. The sole shortcoming which was noted by the 1st respondent want of NOC from the Fire & Safety Department, which was also subsequently obtained and produced by the petitioner, it is stated. The sole shortcoming which was noted by the 1st respondent want of NOC from the Fire & Safety Department, which was also subsequently obtained and produced by the petitioner, it is stated. The complaint of the petitioner is that now by the impugned Ext.P-4 order dated 15.11.2019, the 1st respondent-Panchayath Secretary has taken the stand that the request of the petitioner for occupancy certificate of the completed construction can be considered only after the petitioner getting statutory permission from the 2nd respondent-RDO in terms of S.27A(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (State Act 28/2018). It is the case of the petitioner that S.27A thereof has been inserted by amendment Act 29 of 2008 which came into force prospectively from 30.12.2017 and that S.27A would also clearly mandates that it is only applications filed for change of user of land after 30.12.2017 could be considered in terms of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner would mainly place reliance on the aforementioned Government Circular dated 13.8.2018 produced as Ext.P-5 in W.P.(C).No.2230/2020 as well as various judgments of this Court. 7. Heard Sri.P.K.Soyuz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 14704/2020 and Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.2230/2020, Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, learned Standing Counsel for Kothamangalam Municipality appearing for the respondent in W.P.(C).No.14704/2020, Sri.George Sebastian learned Standing counsel for Nedumbassery Grama Panchayath appearing for respondents R1 & R2 in the latter Writ Petition (2230/2020) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents concerned. 8. The petitioners mainly place reliance on various judgments of this Court as in Mahin v. Keezhmad Grama Panchayat ( 2020 (2) KLT 478 ) and judgment dated 26.2.2020 in W.P.(C).No.5520/2020 (produced as Ext.P-6 in W.P. (C).No.14707/2020), etc. That apart, the State Government has now clarified beyond any pale of doubt that in cases as in the instant one, the benefit could be given to the building permit holders, who secured building permit from the local bodies concerned before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the State Act 28/2018, which has introduced as per S.27A thereof) as can be seen from the abovesaid Ext.P-5 Circular dated 13.8.2018. The State Government has declared unambiguously and categorically that where the applicant concerned has secured building permit to construct a building from the local body concerned prior to 30.12.2017, even in respect of the properties which has been converted as garden land much before 2008 Act, objections raised by the local bodies that they will have to necessarily secure statutory permission in terms of S.27A of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act is not tenable so long as the building permit has been issued prior to 30.12.2017 and even if the building construction has been actually completed after the cut off date, then request in such cases pertaining to completed construction for issuance of occupancy certificate/building numbering, etc., would be considered without being in any manner detrimentally affected by the said amended provisions of the said Act 28 of 2018, which now came into force only prospectively from 30.12.2017. However, it has been clarified in the Government Circular that such construction should be in compliance with the then prevailing norms and Rules. 9. In the instant case, it is beyond any dispute that building permits covered in both these Writ Petitions have been issued long prior to 30.12.2017 (the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the State Act 28 of 2008 Act). Hence petitioners are fully entitled to get the benefit of the said Government Circular dated 13.8.2018. That apart, this Court has already held in various decisions as in Mahin v. Keezhmad Grama Panchayat ( 2020 (2) KLT 478 ) that in cases where the subject property has been converted prior to 2008 Act and building permit has been issued by the local body concerned without reference to the nature of the land and after the construction of the building the local body will be estopped from raising objections for grant of completion certificate, occupancy certificate or for grant of permit for additional construction on the ground that subject property continued to be descried as ‘nilam/paddy land’ in the BTR. Those aspects are also reiterated in judgments as in the one rendered on 26.2.2020 in W.P.(C).No.5520/2020 (Ext.P-6 in W.P.(C).No. 14707/2020). Those aspects are also reiterated in judgments as in the one rendered on 26.2.2020 in W.P.(C).No.5520/2020 (Ext.P-6 in W.P.(C).No. 14707/2020). In both these cases, the respondent-local bodies have granted building permit to the respective applicants concerned without raising any objection regarding the nature of the land and construction has been completed and they have sought for grant of occupancy certificate and the building permits have been secured much prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017. In the light of these aspects, the petitioners are also entitled to succeed on the basis of the aspects already dealt with by this Court in Mahin v. Keezhmad Grama Panchayat ( 2020 (2) KLT 478 ), etc. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned stand of the respondent-local body concerned rejecting the plea of the petitioners for grant of occupancy certificate, etc., is declared to be illegal and ultra vires and the same will stand set aside and quashed and consequential respective applications submitted by the respective petitioners for grant of occupancy certificate will stand remitted to the respective Secretary of the respondent-local body concerned in these cases for consideration and decision afresh. 10. Sri.P.K.Soyuz, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 would submit that the respondent-Municipal Secretary therein has taken the stand in Ext.P-2 that after inspection the subject construction seems to be in excess of the permitted plinth area permitted by the building permit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the factual allegations raised are not correct and an inspection with notice to the petitioner would disclose the correct factual aspect and even if there is any excess area, the petitioner is willing to make application for regularisation of the construction, which is in excess of the permitted area. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the factual allegations raised are not correct and an inspection with notice to the petitioner would disclose the correct factual aspect and even if there is any excess area, the petitioner is willing to make application for regularisation of the construction, which is in excess of the permitted area. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered in W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 that the request of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate will stand remitted to the Secretary of the Kothamangalam Municipality for consideration and decision afresh and inspection could be conducted by the Municipal Engineer with prior notice to the petitioner to ascertain as to whether the subject construction has been completed within the permitted area as per the building permit or whether there is any excess construction and copy of said inspection report should be given to the petitioner in advance and if the inspection report disclose any excess construction it will be open to the petitioner to submit application for regularisation of such excess construction before the respondent. Thereupon the respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through her authorised representative/counsel, if any, and then should take a considered decision on the matters raised in the application for grant of occupancy certificate as well as the application for regularisation, if so required on the basis of the Building Rules which was in vogue at the time of issuance of building permit. Decision in this regard should be duly rendered by the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The process of inspection should be duly completed by the Municipal Engineer within 10 days so that overall time limit of one month could be strictly adhered to by the respondent. 12. As regards W.P.(C).No.2230/2020, it is ordered that the application of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate will stand remitted to the 1st respondent-Secretary of the Nedumbassery Grama Panchayath for considered and decision afresh and after affording opportunity of being heard through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, the 1st respondent will pass orders on the said application in accordance with the Building Rules which was in force at the time of grant of building permit, without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The respective petitioners will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copies of the memorandum of Writ Petition with all exhibits before the respondent authorities concerned for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions will stand finally disposed of.