JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- The petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of 2.80 Ares of land in R.S. No. 275/8 and 1.20 Ares of land in R.S. No. 279/2 of ongallur II Village. The said property was a Nilam and in terms of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Kerala it was converted into a Purayidom in 1995. Based upon the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and in view of the conversion of the property the said property was not included in the land data bank prepared and notified. But the 7th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for construction of building in the said property. Therefore the petitioner filed an application before the 3rd respondent seeking to make necessary classification of the property in the Basic Tax Register. Since the same was not considered the petitioner approached this Court by filling W.P. (C) No. 21977/ 2018 which was disposed by Ext.P-12 judgment directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider the petition in accordance with the direction contained in the said judgment. But contrary to that the third respondent passed Ext.P-14 order fixing the fair value of the property and by Ext.P-15 directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 3,14,820/- It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- “(i) Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P 14 and P 15 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 order or direction directing the third respondent to re consider the petitioner’s application afresh and pass orders in terms of the dicta laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Ext. P16 judgment ordering necessary alterations in the revenue records including Basic Tax Register showing the petitioner’s property as garden land/purayidam instead of nilam without insisting to pay any amount as for the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2018 and the Rules framed there under, within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. P.N. Mohannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri. R. Sreehari, learned standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent (Ongallur Grama Panchayat). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property, though continues to be described as ‘nilam/paddy land’ was converted as ‘garden land/purayidom’ long prior to 12.08.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) and that as a matter of fact the petitioner’s predecessor, who owned the said property had filed an application before the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, seeking for permission for change of user of the land under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, (for short the KLU Order) as early as in the year 1993 and the same was rejected as per order No. KDis.2124/93 dated 13.08.1993 (referred to as item No. 1 in Ext.P-4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner’s predecessor had challenged the same by filing appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the KLU Order before the Board of Revenue as per appeal petition dated 17.11.1993 (referred to as item No. 2 in Ext.P-4). Thereupon, the Board of Revenue (Appellate Authority) had called for a report of the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, who had furnished report no. H.451/94 dated 21.12.1994 in the matter (referred to as item No. 3 in Ext.P-4). Thereafter the petitioner’s predecessor was heard in detail by the Board of Revenue and it was found that the act on the part of the 3rd respondent in having rejected the plea of the petitioner’s predecessor under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order as per order dated 13.08.1993 is discriminatory inasmuch as an identically situated property was given the said benefit of permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order. Accordingly the appellate authority (Board of Revenue) has allowed the said appeal dated 17.11.1993, filed by the petitioner’s predecessor as per Ext.P-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995, issued on behalf of the Board of Revenue. 4. Accordingly the appellate authority (Board of Revenue) has allowed the said appeal dated 17.11.1993, filed by the petitioner’s predecessor as per Ext.P-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995, issued on behalf of the Board of Revenue. 4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is only thereafter that the Board of Revenue was repealed and later replaced by the Commissionerate for Land Revenue. That, by virtue of the orders passed by the appellate authority under Rule 11 of the KLU Order, the request of the petitioner’s predecessor under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order would stand allowed, and the impugned rejection order dated 13.18.1993 of the 3rd respondent would stand set aside in view of the allowing of the said appeal as per Ext.P-4. Ext.P-4 order dated 16.10.1995 issued by the Board of Revenue (LR), Thiruvananthapuram reads as follows:- IMAGE 5. Further, the petitioner would point out that the petitioner’s predecessor had obtained the requisite permission for conversion and change of user of the land in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order as early as on 16.10.1995 in view of Ext.P-4 appellate order and that the subject property was thus converted by the petitioner’s predecessor long prior to 12.08.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) (State Act 28 of 2008). Rule 6 of the KLU Order reads as follows:- “6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop - (1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. (2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector: Provided that except in the case of land under cardamom cultivation, no permission under sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2), shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is converted or attempted to be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilized in paddy cultivation or fish culture: Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally.” 6. Hence the petitioner would urge that it is by now well established that once the property holder secures the necessary statutory permission in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order for change of user of the subject property then the earlier Basic Tax Register (for short ‘BTR’) entries would become superfluous and redundant and thereupon it is the statutory obligation of the competent revenue official concerned to make fresh assessment of the subject property in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to correctly show the changed nature of land as ‘garden land/purayidom’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘nilam/paddy land.’ It is by now well settled by this Court in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others vs. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB). 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the subject property covered by Ext.P-4 as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No. 1589 of 2011 dated 06.08.2011 of Shoranur Sub-Registrar Office. Thereupon the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent/Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary orders and directions in the matter of alteration in the BTR, as per Ext.P-11 representation/petition dated 22.06.2018. Thereupon the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent/Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary orders and directions in the matter of alteration in the BTR, as per Ext.P-11 representation/petition dated 22.06.2018. Since no action was forthcoming thereon, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 21977/2018, which this Court had disposed of as per Ext.P-12 judgment dated 17.07.2018 whereby the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, was directed to consider and pass orders on the aforesaid petition (Ext.P-11 herein/Ext.P-12 therein) within the time limit mentioned in the said judgment and in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court as per decisions in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others vs. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB) and the other decisions cited therein. Thereafter the 3rd respondent has now passed Ext.P-15 order dated 15.06.2020 directing the petitioner that he will have to necessarily pay higher amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which has introduced Section 27A thereof and the Rules framed thereunder and the said amount has been quantified therein purportedly on the basis of the fair value of the subject property concerned. It is this order that Ext.P-15 dated 15.06.2020 that is under challenge in the writ petition (civil). 8. From the pleadings and materials on record it is seen that the subject property that in Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 06.08.2011, there is a clear recital in internal page No. 7 thereof that the vendor (predecessor of the petitioner) had duly obtained Ext.P-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995 issued by the Board of Revenue. Going by the details in Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 06.08.2011, Ext.P-11 petition dated 22.06.2018 and Ext.P-13 representation dated 30.07.2018, it is seen that the extent of the subject property is an extent of 2.80 Ares in Re-survey No. 275/8 and 1.20 Ares in Re-survey No. 279/2 of Ongallur-II Village, Pattambi Taluk. Apart from this it is stated in Ext.P-11 representation dated 22.06.2018 that the present Resurvey number of the property is 279/2 & 275/8 and the old survey number of the subject property is 27/2. The old survey number shown in the schedule of Ext.P-1 title deed appears to be (Old Sy. No. 27/2). Apart from this it is stated in Ext.P-11 representation dated 22.06.2018 that the present Resurvey number of the property is 279/2 & 275/8 and the old survey number of the subject property is 27/2. The old survey number shown in the schedule of Ext.P-1 title deed appears to be (Old Sy. No. 27/2). A reading of Ext.P-4 appellate order issued by the Board of Revenue under Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order would show that the subject property is in Sy. No. 27/2 of Ongallur-II Village having an extent of 9 cents which is described as ‘paddy land (wetland).’ Rule 11 of the KLU Order reads as follows:- “11. Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under this Order may prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. (2) Every appeal preferred under sub-clause (1) shall be accompanied by the order appealed against or a certified copy of it. (3) The Board of Revenue shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.” 9. This Court has only examined the pleadings and materials on records and it is for the competent revenue official concerned to ascertain such details. However, the crucial aspect of the matter is that the petitioner’s predecessor had filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order before the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer as early as in the year 1993, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per order dated 13.08.1993 (referred to as item No. 1 in Ext.P-4). 10. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner’s predecessor had filed a statutory appeal under Rule 11 of the KLU Order before the Board of Revenue as per appeal petition dated 17.11.1993 (referred to as item No. 2 in Ext.P-4). A report dated 21.12.1994 was also submitted in the matter by the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer to the Board of Revenue (cited as item No. 3 in Ext.P-4). 11. A reading of Ext.P-4 would clearly indicate that the competent authority of the Board of Revenue had granted opportunity of hearing and had considered various aspects of the matter meticulously and in detail and also had specifically considered the issue as to whether similarly situated property was given the benefit of Rule 6(2) conversion, etc. 11. A reading of Ext.P-4 would clearly indicate that the competent authority of the Board of Revenue had granted opportunity of hearing and had considered various aspects of the matter meticulously and in detail and also had specifically considered the issue as to whether similarly situated property was given the benefit of Rule 6(2) conversion, etc. It was found that an identically situated property was given the benefit under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and hence the competent authority of the Board of Revenue as the appellate authority came to the considered conclusion that the said act of the 3rd respondent in having rejected the said request of the petitioner’s predecessor as per the impugned order dated 13.08.1993, is discriminatory and thus illegal, etc. It is on the basis of such detailed consideration that the Board of Revenue as the appellate authority has allowed the said appeal petition dated 17.11.1993 as per Ext.P-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995. Therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 13.08.1993 issued by the 3rd respondent/Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer stands, thus set aside and rescinded and the plea of the petitioner’s predecessor under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order will stands allowed by virtue of the allowing of Ext.P-4 appeal. In other words it is clear and catagoric from a mere reading of Ext.P-4 that the petitioner’s predecessor has secured the necessary statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order as early as on 16.10.1995. 12. It has to be borne in mind that the order to be passed by the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order is appealable before the Board of Revenue under Rule 11 of the KLU Order (Board of Revenue was repealed and later replaced by the Commissionerate for Land Revenue). A further remedy by way of revision under Rule 14 of the KLU Order is also provided which can be exercised by the competent authority of the State Government. Rule 14 of the KLU Order reads as follows:- “14. A further remedy by way of revision under Rule 14 of the KLU Order is also provided which can be exercised by the competent authority of the State Government. Rule 14 of the KLU Order reads as follows:- “14. Revision - The State Government shall have the power to call for the records of the acts and proceedings of the Collector or the Board of Revenue in any case under this Order and pass such orders thereon as they think fit.” So, in a case where the original authority rejects the plea under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and the appellate authority allows the said appeal under Rule 11 of the KLU Order by passing an order in the nature of Ext.P-4, then the impugned rejection order of the 3rd respondent will stand set aside and the plea of the petitioner’s predecessor for grant of permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order stands thus allowed by the allowing of the of Ext.P-4 appeal. The position in that regard is clarified, ordered and declared in this case. 13. It is by now well settled by a series of ruling of this Court as in Geo Peter vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (3) KLT 838 , Renji K. Paul vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262 , Salim vs. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) KLT 604 (DB) that in a case where the subject property has been converted prior to coming into force of the 2008 Act and where the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 has been submitted by the party concerned before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act) introducing Sec.27A thereof, etc., then none of the detrimental and adverse conditions flowing out from the said amended provisions can be pressed into service as against the party concerned and the respondent-RDO is statutorily obliged to consider the said plea for conversion on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. This aspect of the matter has also been reiterated by a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thasildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and Another vs. Renjith George, 2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB) that in a case where the subject property has been converted prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act and where Rule 6(2) application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 has been submitted before 30.12.2017, then the said plea of the party has to be considered in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and that none of the adverse provisions contained in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act can be pressed into service as against such a party. Moreover, the Division Bench has also reiterated in Renjith’s case (supra) that in respect of such a property, the party is also legally entitled to maintain an application Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for re-assessment of the subject property, so as to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register to show the classification of the land as purayidam or garden land, instead of the earlier BTR entries as paddy land or Nilam, as the case may be, in view of the earlier dictum laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others vs. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB). 14. In this case, it appears that the statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order has been obtained by the petitioner’s predecessor as per Ext.P-4 order dated 16.10.1995, which is much prior to 12.08.2008. A case of a party who diligently prosecutes his rights and gets the statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, even before the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (State Act 28 of 2008) would stand on a much better pedestal than cases wherein the party has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order after 12.08.2008, but before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of State Act 28 of 2008) which has introduced Section 27A thereof, and orders of permission are passed either after the cut off date of 30.12.2017. Even in cases where the party has filed the requisite Rule 6(2) application after 12.08.2008 but before 30.12.2017, this Court has held that the party is entitled to get the said application considered strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and that in such a case the party cannot be compelled to pay the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which included Section 27A thereof and the amended Rules including Rule 12(17) thereof. Therefore, a case in this nature would stand on a much better pedestal inasmuch as statutory permission obtained much prior to coming into force of the State Act 28 of 2008. Therefore, in the instant case the stand of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner should necessarily pay the higher amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder is illegal and ultra-vires. 15. The position the above regard has also been discussed in detail by this Court in decisions as in Fr. Jose Uppani vs. District Collector, 2020 (3) KLT 492 , which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in District Collector vs. Fr. Jose Uppani, 2020 (4) KLT 612 . Hence in the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer that the petitioner should necessarily pay the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the amended Rules framed thereunder including Rule 12(17) thereof is absolutely illegal, ultra-vires and un-enforcible and the position in that regard is declared and ordered. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-14 order dated 27.01.2020 will stand set aside and quashed. 16. On being queried as to who is the competent revenue official concerned to consider and take decision on application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the competent revenue official in that regard is the Tahsildar concerned in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the competent revenue official in that regard is the Tahsildar concerned in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It appears that the petitioner has made the request under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the 3rd respondent, who is not the competent authority to deal with in this matter and that the petitioner ought to have approached the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. If it is for permission for change of user of the land as per Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order that the party will have to approach either the District Collector concerned or the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, as both of them are concurrently empowered authorities in that regard, being the notified collector in terms of the provisions contained in the KLU Order. But for re-assessment or fresh assessment of the subject property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, after securing permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, the party will have to approach the Tahsildar concerned and not the Revenue Divisional Officer. 17. Sri. P.N. Mohannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner would immediately file the requisite application before the 4th respondent- Tahsildar seeking for assessment of the subject property covered by Ext.P-4 for fresh assessment in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to secure alterations in the BTR, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 18. Accordingly it is ordered that on receipt of such application filed by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this judgment, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar will ascertain as to whether the property covered by the said application filed under Section 6A of-the Kerala Land Tax Act, is the same as the one covered by ExtP-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995 issued by the Board of Revenue under Rule 11 of the KLU Order and also the details regarding Ext.P-4 order. It is found that the subject property covered by the said application filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is the same as the one covered by Ext.P-4, then the said request will have to be allowed. It is found that the subject property covered by the said application filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is the same as the one covered by Ext.P-4, then the said request will have to be allowed. Accordingly after ascertaining these details the 4th respondent-Tahsildar will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, and then should pass orders of fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as ‘garden land/purayidom’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘Nilam/Paddy Land, without much delay preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application along with a certified copy of this judgment and strictly in terms of the dictum laid down by this Court in decisions as in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others vs. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB) and Thasildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and Another vs. Renjith George, 2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB) and without compelling the petitioner, in any manner, to pay the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which has introduced Section 27A thereof and the amended provisions of the Rules framed thereunder, including Rule 12(17) thereof, etc., provided the subject property covered by the said application is the same as the one covered by Ext.P-4. 19. The petitioner will produce certified copy of this judgment as well as a copy of the memorandum of the writ petition (civil) along with all the exhibits before the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, for necessary information and further action. 20. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.