JUDGMENT : As identical issue has been raised in these writ proceedings, these WP(C)s are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. 2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 16800 of 2020 are as follows: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Ext P4 and quash the same to the extent it directs to comply with the provisions of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017. ii. Declare that The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 or The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 has no application at the time of issuing Ext P4 order. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, 1961 and make necessary changes in the entries of the revenue records And iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 16697 of 2020 are as follows: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Ext P3 and quash the same to the extent it directs to comply with the provisions of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017. ii. Declare that The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 or The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 has no application at the time of issuing Ext P3 order. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act, 1961 and make necessary changes in the entries of the revenue records And iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Heard Sri. T.P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these two cases and Sri. K.J. Mohammed Anzar, learned Senior Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for official respondents in these cases. 5. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Heard Sri. T.P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these two cases and Sri. K.J. Mohammed Anzar, learned Senior Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for official respondents in these cases. 5. The case of the petitioners in these cases is to the effect that, the subject property concerned in these cases, though described as the nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the same has been converted as garden land/purayidam, long prior to 12.8.2008, the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (State Act 28 of 2008). Further that, there are grown up coconut trees aged more than 25 years situated in the subject properties and the subject properties have been clearly shown in the Land Data Bank prepared as per the provisions of the State Act 28 of 2008 as “claimed/converted land 10 years prior to 2008”. 6. The petitioners in these cases have submitted applications (Ext.P-3 in the former case and copy of such application has not been produced in the latter case) before the 1st respondent RDO, some time in the last week of February, 2018 or in the first week of March, 2018, seeking for statutory permission for change of user of land for any non agricultural purposes. According to the petitioners, though as on the date of submission of these applications, the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, may have been in vogue, the said ordinance was later re-promulgated twice and the last of said ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, [hereinafter referred to as “The Amendment Act, 2018”] which had retrospectively came into force on 30.12.2017. The complaint of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent RDO has issued Ext.P-4 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 in the former case and Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 in the latter case, whereby it has been ordered that the formal plea for change of user of land can be allowed in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, [hereinafter referred to as “The KLU Order, 1967”] and also taking into account Sec.16 of the abovesaid Amendment Ordinance. 7. 7. The petitioners have got a contention that the plea of the petitioners should be strictly considered in accordance with the KLU Order, 1967. But, since the petitioner has not challenged the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2018, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof, and the other provisions including the rules framed thereunder, the counsel for the petitioner has not made any serious attempts to press the contention based on Rule 6 of the KLU Order. The substantial contention raised by the petitioner is that, even if it is held that since the petitioner has filed his application for change of user of land after 31.12.2017, his case can at best is to be governed by the provisions contained in Sec.27A(13) of the Amendment Act, 2018, which retrospectively came into force on 30.12.2017 and that his case is to be regulated by the provisions contained in Sec. 28A(1) the Act and the Rules framed there under. The cardinal aspect is that, the 1st respondent RDO has gone wrong in holding that the petitioners' cases are to be regulated by the provisions contained in abovesaid Amendment Ordinance, 2017, more particularly Sec.16 thereof, which imposes a higher fee of 50% of the fair value of the subject property, whereas as per the provisions contained in the Amendment Act, 2018, which retrospectively came into force on 30.12.2017 as well as the rules framed thereunder, he need to pay only a much lesser fee based on the percentage of fair value of the subject property. 8. The operative portion of Ext.P-4 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 issued by the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.16800/2020, reads as follows : 9. The operative portion of Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 19.5.2018 issued by the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.16697/2020, reads as follows : 10. At the outset, it has been held by this Court that since indisputably the petitioners have submitted his application for change of user of land after 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the Amendment Act), and since the petitioners have not challenged the provisions of the vires and reasonableness of the provisions contained in the said Amendment Act and the rules framed thereunder, there is no question of this Court holding that the petitioner’s case is to be regulated solely by the provisions contained in the KLU Order, 1967. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court, more particularly that rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases as in Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (6) KLT 405 ] that where the application for change of user of land has been filed on or after 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of abovesaid Amendment Act), then the case is to be regulated by the provisions contained in the same Amendment Act, and if in a case where the party has filed the application for change of user of land prior to 30.12.2017, then such case is to be strictly regulated by the provisions contained in the KLU Order, 1967, and not by the abovesaid Amendment Act, 2018, which came into force on 30.12.2017. {See Shanmugam v. District Collector [ 2019 (2) KLT 45 (DB)], Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2019 (2) KLT 262 (DB)], District Collector v. Fr.Jose Uppani [ 2020 (4) KHC 394 = 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] etc} Further, the SLP filed by the State before the Apex Court for impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Fr.Jose Upani’s case supra, has been dismissed. 11. In the light of these aspects it is to be held that though the 1st respondent RDO has inter alia stated in the abovesaid impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 that the case of the petitioner would also be regulated by the provisions contained in the KLU Order, is not legally correct. So the main issue to be decided in this case is the correctness or legality of the stand of the respondent RDO in the impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 that the case of the petitioner will be regulated by the provisions contained in Sec.16 of the abovesaid Amendment Ordinance, 2017, which came into force on 30.12.2017. 12. In this regard, it may be profitable to examine the brief history of the enactment of State Act 28 of 2008 as well as the Ordinances framed on 30.12.2017 and thereafter, which was followed by the Amendment Act, 2018, which was given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. Those aspects are dealt with in para 7 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case in Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (6) KLT 405 ] and the same reads as follows : “7. Those aspects are dealt with in para 7 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case in Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (6) KLT 405 ] and the same reads as follows : “7. It is a fact that even though Act, 2008 was introduced on and with effect from 12.08.2008 with the intention of conserving the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system, in the State of Kerala, it had only prospective operation on and with effect from the date of introduction of the Act, 2008. Which thus means, any land converted prior to the introduction of the Act, 2008 or any land which was not included in the data bank constituted as per the Act, 2008 was governed by the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The Act, 2008 has undergone amendment as per, Act 14 of 2011 on and with effect from 06.07.2011, Act 12 of 2015, Act 19 of 2016 and finally by Act 29 of 2018. The Act 29 of 2018 was introduced by the Government for the smooth implementation of the major Government projects and also in public interest and thus intended to amend Sections 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 25 and insert Sections 27A to 27D in the Act, 2008. As the legislative assembly of the State of Kerala was not in session, and the proposals had to be given effect to immediately, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 was promulgated by the Governor of Kerala on 30th December, 2017 as Ordinance No. 41 of 2017 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 2903 dated 30.12.2017. Evidently, a bill to replace the Ordinance could not be introduced in its session commenced on the 22nd of January, 2018 and ended on the 7th day of February, 2018. Therefore, in order to keep alive the provisions of Ordinance, the Governor of Kerala has promulgated the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 on the 12th day of February, 2018, which was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 348 dated 12th February, 2018. Therefore, in order to keep alive the provisions of Ordinance, the Governor of Kerala has promulgated the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 on the 12th day of February, 2018, which was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 348 dated 12th February, 2018. Though a bill to replace the said Ordinance by an act of the State Legislature was published as Bill No. 122 of the 14th Kerala Legislative Assembly, the same could not be introduced in the Legislative Assembly during its session which commenced on 26th February, 2018 and ended on the 4th day of April, 2018. Therefore, again the Ordinance No. 30 of 2018 was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 919 dated 7th April, 2018. It was the said ordinance that was replaced by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Amendment Act, 2018 on 6.7.2018 on and with effect from 30.12.2017, i.e., the date of the first Ordinance No. 41 of 2017. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Amendment Act was introduced in 2018 and retrospective effect was given from 30.12.2017, can never be sustained under law, because the deeming effect to Section 27A and other amended provisions under the Amendment Act, 2018 was given, to have continued force from the date of the Ordinance dated 30.12.2017.” 13. So, it can be seen that three ordinances were promulgated from 30.12.2017 onwards up to the later enactment of the Amendment Act, 2018, which was given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. The first ordinance in that regard (Ordinance 41 of 2017) was promulgated on 30.12.2017 and the same has been given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. This was followed by the second ordinance which came into force on 12.2.2018, and subsequently by the third ordinance on 7.4.2018 and ultimately by the Amendment Act which was published in the Gazette on 6.7.2018 and given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. 14. The submission of the 1st respondent is that the applications for change of user of land in these cases were submitted in the third week of February, 2018/ first week of March, 2018, at a time when the first ordinance was in vogue. The impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 was passed at a time when the third ordinance was then in vogue. The impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 was passed at a time when the third ordinance was then in vogue. On this basis, it is contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that since, the impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 was passed at a time when the abovesaid ordinance was in force, and as Sec.16 thereof has clearly stipulated that the change of user of land is entertained subject to payment of fee at the rate of 50% of the fair value of the land, the petitioner will have to necessarily pay said amount. 15. Whereas the rival contention of the petitioner is that, subsection (13) of Sec.27A of the Amendment Act, 2018, which retrospectively came into force on 30.12.2017, clearly mandates that applications filed on or after 30.12.2017 is to be regulated by the said provisions contained in the said Amendment Act, including Sec.27A thereof. That, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforecited judgments has clearly settled the said position etc. Accordingly, it is pointed out that since the Amendment Act has been given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017, the petitioner’s case will be regulated squarely by the provisions of said Act, and he need to pay the requisite fee only on the basis of beneficial provisions made as per the Rules of the said Amendment Act, prescribes that the fee need be paid on the basis of percentage of the fair value, which is much less than 50% of the fair value as stipulated in Sec.16 of the Ordinance. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioners have filed their applications for change of user of land in the last week of February, 2018 or in the first week of March, 2018. Their applications have been disposed of on the basis of proceedings dated 19.5.2018 at a time when the third ordinance was in vogue. Sec.16 of said Ordinance stipulates that 50% of the fair value of the subject property has been paid as fee for the said process of permission for change of user of land. So also, indisputably the ordinance has been replaced by the Amendment Act, 2018, which was given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. As per the provisions contained in Sec.27A(3) introduced as per the Amendment Act, 2018, fee has been paid as per the provisions prescribed in the Rules. So also, indisputably the ordinance has been replaced by the Amendment Act, 2018, which was given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. As per the provisions contained in Sec.27A(3) introduced as per the Amendment Act, 2018, fee has been paid as per the provisions prescribed in the Rules. There is no dispute that the prescription made in the Rules framed in terms of Sec.27A(3) of the Amendment Act, stipulates that the amount to be paid is much lesser than the 50% of the fair value of the fee as stipulated in Sec.16 of the Ordinance which has introduced amendment as Sec.27A(3) of the Act. 16. If the abovesaid technical contention of the respondents are upheld, then it would amount to a situation whereby an applicant like the present petitioners who were diligent enough to immediately submit requisite applications, will have to suffer hostile discrimination. Subsection 13 of Sec.27A clearly mandates that all applications filed on or after 30.12.2017 for change of user of land will be regulated by the provisions contained in Sec.27A(1) and the rules framed there under. Incidentally, there also to be noted that there was no provision in the ordinance which is corresponding to the amended Sec.27A(13) as per the Amendment Act, 2018. So, the intention of the legislature as per Sec.27A(13) of the Act is very clear that all or any application filed for change of user of land on or after 30.12.2017, will be regulated by the provisions contained in the said Amendment Act, 2018, which has been given retrospective effect from 30.12.2017. A person can get outside the rigour of said provisions only if he is able to successfully challenge the prescriptions contained in Sec.27A of the Act. Such is not the case here. Therefore, it is only to be held that since the applications of the petitioners herein for change of user of land have been filed on or after 30.12.2017, the same will have to be regulated by the provisions contained in Sec.27A(3). In other words, the fee to be paid by the petitioner shall in terms of the fee prescribed by the rules framed by said Amendment Act. If the contention of the 1st respondent based on Sec.16 of the Ordinance is upheld, then, it would amount to inflicting hostile discrimination on a party like the petitioners. In other words, the fee to be paid by the petitioner shall in terms of the fee prescribed by the rules framed by said Amendment Act. If the contention of the 1st respondent based on Sec.16 of the Ordinance is upheld, then, it would amount to inflicting hostile discrimination on a party like the petitioners. In these aspects, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018(Ext.P-3/Ext.P-4 in these cases) is illegal and ultra vires and would require interdiction and are liable to be quashed. The next issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner has to pay the requisite fee in terms of prescriptions under Sec.27A(3) in terms of the fair value of the property that was in vogue, at the time of submission of application or whether case of the petitioners will be regulated by the subsequent amendment made to provisions in Sec.27A by the introduction of the Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2020 (Act 8 of 2020), which was published in the Gazette on 11.9.2020 and which was given retrospective effect from 1.4.2020, etc. 17. In that regard it has to be borne in mind that this Court has already held in decisions as in Dr. Vimal Vincent v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2020 (1) KLT 145 ], that the fee prescribed as per Sec.27A(3) read with Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, can only be the fair value of the subject property covered by the application filed under Sec.27A(1) and it cannot be the notified fair value in respect of any other property. It has also been further held therein that in view of abovesaid provisions, the said fair value should be that of the subject property as notified in terms of Sec.28(A) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Further, this Court has also held in various decisions including the one in Ajith kumar Shenoy v. RDO [ 2020 (5) KLT 683 ] that the fee should be computed not only in terms of the fair value of the subject property covered by the application filed under Sec.27A(1), but that it should be such fair value of subject property as on date of submission of Sec.27A(1) application, and not the fair value which is revised subsequently thereto. 18. 18. As referred to herein, the Legislature has enacted the Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2020 (Act 8 of 2020), which was published in the Gazette on 11.9.2020 and which was given retrospective effect from 1.4.2020. Sec.2 of the Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2020, has introduced Amendment of Act 28 of 2008 and it stipulated therein as follows: “2. Amendment of Act 28 of 2008.--In the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (28 of 2008), in section 2, for clause (vi A) the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-- “(vi A) “fair value” means the fair value of the garden land adjacent to the unnotified land for which fair value has been fixed under section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959) or where such fair value has not been fixed for such land, the fair value fixed for similar and similarly situated garden land”. ” 19. Hence, it is contended by the respondents that in view of the said amended provision made effective from 1.4.2020 the fair value means the fair value of the garden land adjacent to the unnotified land for which fair value has been fixed under Sec.28A of the Kerala Stamp Act or where such fair value has not been fixed for such land, fair value fixed for such similar and similarly situated garden land, etc. On this basis the respondents would contend that in case, this Court is quashing the impugned proceedings and remitting the applications for consideration, and as now the abovesaid amended provision made retrospective effect from 1.4.2020 was already in force, the petitioner will have to pay the fair value in terms of the said amended provision of the fee to be paid on the basis of the fair value. 20. The petitioner’s counsel would repel the said contentions of the learned Government Pleader. 21. After considering rival pleas, it has to be borne in mind that indisputably, the petitioners have filed their applications for change of user of land, in the last week of February 2018 or first week of March 2018. Indisputably, the abovesaid further amendment has been given retrospective effect only from 1.4.2020. Even if, the abovesaid retrospective effect given from 1.4.2020 is accepted, still, at best it can only be applied for applications for change of user of land filed on or after 1.4.2020. Indisputably, the abovesaid further amendment has been given retrospective effect only from 1.4.2020. Even if, the abovesaid retrospective effect given from 1.4.2020 is accepted, still, at best it can only be applied for applications for change of user of land filed on or after 1.4.2020. Whereas, in the instant case the petitioners have filed their applications for change of user of land, much prior to 1.4.2020. So, the said amended provisions will have no applications to the factual scenario in this case. That apart, it has to be borne in mind that the Amendment Act, 2018, which has introduced Sec.27A has been made effective from 30.12.2017. An applicant cannot take advantage of the situation and say that even if there is delay on his part in filing such application under Sec.27A much after the cut-off date of 30.12.2017, still he needs to pay the fee computed on the basis of the fair value as it stood on 30.12.2017. So, the applicants will have to necessarily pay such fee, as on the date of his application. So also, the respondent revenue authorities cannot take advantage of their own wrong in delaying the matter or lead to situations of passing wrongful orders and then getting remit of the matter by contending that such fee payable should be, the subsequently increased fee payable on the basis of the fair value as on the date on which the decision is actually rendered, and not on the date on which the application has been filed. Such a stand of the respondent revenue authorities is accepted, then it would amount to permitting the State authorities to take advantage of their own wrong, delaying the consideration of application. Therefore, both the applicant as well as the State, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs. Therefore, from an objective perspective, the only rational conclusion would be that the fee is to be payable by the applicant on the basis of the norms as it stood at the time of submission of application. This will be the scenario where the fee is increased subsequent during the pendency of the application. This Court is not dealing with the scenario, where the fee is decreased, during the pendency of the application. 22. This will be the scenario where the fee is increased subsequent during the pendency of the application. This Court is not dealing with the scenario, where the fee is decreased, during the pendency of the application. 22. The contention of the State, to the contrary, if allowed to stand, would be to arbitrary and irrational consequences, and would amount to permitting the State to take advantage of their own wrong in delaying the consideration of the applications, or passing wrongful orders leading to remits and then demanding that even though the applicant was entitled for grant of benefit, he will have to pay the higher fee as it stood as on the date of actual consideration and not the fee that was payable as on the date of application. This is especially so in cases where, a higher fee is stipulated at a time higher fee is in vogue at the time of consideration of application. 23. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that even if the further amendment as per the Finance Act, given retrospective effect from 1.4.2020, is to be considered, the same can regulate applications filed on or after 1.4.2020, and not applications as in the instant case which have been filed much prior to 1.4.2020. Hence, the abovesaid contentions of the respondents will also stand rejected. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 (Ext.P-3 in the former case and Ext.P-4 in the latter case) would require interdiction and the same will stand quashed, only to the extent regarding the fee payable by the petitioners. Correspondingly, the applications filed by the petitioners for change of user of land as referred to in the impugned proceedings will stand remitted to the 1st respondent RDO for reconsideration and passing of orders for the fee payable by the petitioners, in the light of the abovesaid decision. 24. A reading of impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2018 would clearly indicate that the 1st respondent has already taken a conscious decision to allow the plea of the petitioners for change of user of land and the only dispute was regarding the fee payable for formal allowing of said applications. The finding of R-1 in the impugned order for allowing the pleas of the petitioners for change of user of the land is upheld and confirmed. The finding of R-1 in the impugned order for allowing the pleas of the petitioners for change of user of the land is upheld and confirmed. The 1st respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the petitioners through their authorized counsel/representatives if any, and then should pass fresh orders, regarding the aspects of fee. The 1st respondent cannot insist that the petitioners should pay the fees as envisaged in Sec.16 of the Ordinance. The 1st respondent will pass orders in the matter of fee to be paid by the petitioner on the basis of the fair value of the subject property covered by the applications of the petitioners and not any other property, and also on the basis of the fair value of the subject properties which was in existence at the time of submission of applications, and not any revised fair value and not on the basis of the further amendments made retrospective effective from 1.4.2020. Orders in that regard should be duly rendered by the 1st respondent RDO within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 25. The Secretary to the Office of the Advocate General, will forward copies of this judgment to the 1st respondent for necessary information and immediate compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions will stand finally disposed of.