JUDGMENT : The petitioner is before this Court seeking to declare that the petitioner is not liable to file Form-7 application under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for the property covered by Exts.P1 & P2 as the same is purchased prior to 30.12.2017 and is below 20.2 Ares of land. The petitioner further seeks to direct the 1st respondent to consider Form-6 applications filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased 19.82 Ares of property on 04.07.2017 as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed. On 26.07.2017, the petitioner purchased another property having an extent of 11.33 Ares as per Ext.P2 Sale Deed. Both the sales were effected prior to the introduction of Section 27A in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 with effect from 30.12.2017. 3. Both the properties of the petitioner were included in the Data Bank and were described as ‘Nilam’ in Revenue records. The properties were, however, later removed from the Data Bank. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Exts.P6 and P7 Form-6 applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On submission of Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner was required to submit a Form-7 application on the premises that the extent of both the properties is more than 20.2 Ares. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the two pieces of landed property through different Sale Deeds on different dates. However, as the properties were lying contiguously, the respondents are directing the petitioner to file Form-7 application as the total extent exceeds 20.2 Ares. 5. Government Pleader entered appearance and controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents submitted that in view of Rule 12 (2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, the petitioner has to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Rules for getting the nature of the land stated in Revenue records. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the lands by two different documents on different dates. Therefore, these two pieces of lands are to be treated as distinct. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the lands by two different documents on different dates. Therefore, these two pieces of lands are to be treated as distinct. The fact that the lands are lying contiguously, cannot be a reason to treat the two pieces of land as one and to insist for a Form-7 application. It is also to be noted that the petitioner had purchased the land prior to 30.12.2017, when Sections 27A to 27C were inserted in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of changing the nature of land and making application in Form-A, the two properties purchased by the petitioner under two Title Deeds will have to be treated as distinct. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 Form-6 applications submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, without insisting for any Form-7 application. The petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to prosecute Form-7 application already made. The petitioner may make an application for withdrawing the same. The petitioner further seeks to direct the 1st respondent to calculate and collect the conversion charges for the applications filed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 as per the Fair Value at the time of filing the application of the specific property. The amendment to the definition of Fair Value in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was effected only on 01.04.2020. Needless to say, the petitioner’s applications will have to be considered as per the Fair Value obtained as on the date of filing of the applications.