ORDER : (A. Muhamed Mustaque, ACJ.) These matters have been placed before us on a reference order for an authoritative pronouncement as to the impact of the order obtained under Kerala Land Utilisation Order qua Section 27A of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Act’). 2. Section 27A of the Paddy Act was incorporated with effect from 30/12/2017. By the above statutory provision, if the owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission. The Paddy Act was enacted in the year 2008 and it came into force with effect from 12/08/2008 to conserve paddy land and wetland and also to restrict the conversion and reclamation of such land. It mandates the constitution of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and its performance includes preparation of a data bank with details of cultivable paddy and wetlands. The power is conferred upon the District Collector to restore illegally reclaimed lands. Land, which was considered as a paddy or wetland prior to 12/08/2008 in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and converted or reclaimed prior to 12/08/2008 is the subject of Section 27A, that means, land in BTR shown as paddy or wetland, but it was converted or reclaimed prior to 12/08/2008 and no longer remains as paddy land or wetland. 3. Land Utilisation Order is a subordinate legislation issued under the Essential Commodities Act. The purpose of the Land Utilisation Order is to secure the objectives of the Essential Commodities Act. The State Government issued Land Utilisation Order in 1967 in exercise of power conferred under Essential Commodities Act to increase production of food crops. To ensure food security, the Collector has power to direct the holder of the land to cultivate such crops which were being cultivated in the land. The food crops under the Land Utilisation Order includes paddy. 4. If the land continues to be a paddy land, on the enactment of Paddy Act, 2008, the law regarding the paddy land is governed by the provisions of the Paddy Act, 2008. The food crops under the Land Utilisation Order includes paddy. 4. If the land continues to be a paddy land, on the enactment of Paddy Act, 2008, the law regarding the paddy land is governed by the provisions of the Paddy Act, 2008. If the land has been already converted and it cannot be used as paddy land, it may not be possible for the Collector to direct the holder of the land to cultivate paddy as it may be asking the holder of the land to perform an impossible act. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Thomas V.J v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2020 KHC 728 ) held that, consequent upon the introduction of Section 27A, clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order(KLU Order) has become redundant as it has lost its relevance. 6. The point arises in the case is in the context of applications that have been made prior to 30/12/2017 for utilising the land for other purposes under KLU Order and no orders have been passed thereon. There are two sets of arguments raised before us, one is by Adv.Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam contending that the application pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer under KLU Order prior to 30/12/2017 is not affected by the incorporation of Section 27A of the Act and holder of the land has a vested right to consider the application in accordance with KLU order. Therefore, it was argued that, once the application was considered and allowed, the holder of the land need not follow the procedure under Section 27A. The second contention was raised by Adv.Sri.K.C.Vincent. According to him, there is no bar under the law to consider the application under Clause 6 of KLU Order independent of Section 27A of the Act. 7. The KLU Order was issued in 1967. In Archana Varghese v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta ( 2015 (2) KHC 39 ), it was held that: “When the land becomes uncultivable for the paddy, the enabling power will become otiose when the land has become unfit to produce paddy the collector compel the land owner to cultivate paddy. The holder of the land is free to use the land in accordance with law. Thus, I hold that in respect of paddy land which was converted prior to the enactment of Act, 2008 no permission is required in terms of Clause 6 of KLUO" 8. The holder of the land is free to use the land in accordance with law. Thus, I hold that in respect of paddy land which was converted prior to the enactment of Act, 2008 no permission is required in terms of Clause 6 of KLUO" 8. Learned counsel Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam quoting two Latin maxims,i.e. (1) 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not contemplate something which cannot be done) (2) 'impotentia excusat legem' (impossibility also excuses a person from doing what is required by law), argued that the Collector’s power to command the holder of the land to cultivate paddy is lost as the land itself becomes uncultivable with paddy. 9. We find force in the argument. As rightly noted by the Division Bench in Thomas V.J. 's case (supra), clause 6(2) of the KLU Order has lost its relevance as no purpose would be served. 10. The question thus arises in this case in the backdrop of levy of fees for the regularisation of land under Section 27A of the Act also. 11. We find, three points of law require consideration. (A) Do holders of land who have obtained order under clause 6(2) require to apply under section 27 A for the purpose of reassessment of land under land Tax Act? (B) What is the effect of section 27A on pending applications under clause 6 (2) of KLU order? (C) Any levy of fees is possible from land holders who have obtained orders or whose applications were pending under KLU as on 30/12/2017. 12. We shall consider all these points together as the issues are interconnected and overlapped. The purport of Section 27A is different from the objectives of the Land Utilisation Order. The purpose of Sec 27A is to change the tenure of land from paddy or wetland in BTR to purayidam. Once the application under Section 27A is allowed, necessary changes will be recorded in revenue records and the Tahsildar will reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act,1961. The purpose of Sec 27A is to change the tenure of land from paddy or wetland in BTR to purayidam. Once the application under Section 27A is allowed, necessary changes will be recorded in revenue records and the Tahsildar will reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act,1961. It is appropriate to refer Section 27C, which reads thus: “Change in records.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgement, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or any Authority, where ever a part of survey number or subdivision if permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of this Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued.’ (2) Where the paddy land or unnotified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess the land Tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records relating to such lands (3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and date of the order and authority granting sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has been accorded, extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall be clearly recorded ensuring that the all entries are legible. (4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical inspection to ensure that changes in revenue records are in accordance with sub-section (3). (5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3).” 13. In order to effect changes in accordance with section 27C, the procedure under section 27A will have to be followed. Thus, definite procedure is prescribed under the Paddy Act to effect changes in revenue records. Once necessary changes are entered in the revenue records, land holder would be in a position to utilise the land without any rigour applicable to utilise such land for any lawful purposes. 14. Thus, definite procedure is prescribed under the Paddy Act to effect changes in revenue records. Once necessary changes are entered in the revenue records, land holder would be in a position to utilise the land without any rigour applicable to utilise such land for any lawful purposes. 14. If the land holder obtained an order under KLU Order prior to 30/12/2017 and had not effected any changes in the revenue records prior to 30/12/2017, he will have to regularise the land in accordance with Section 27A by submitting an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer. This is so clear from Section 27C (5). Merely for the reason that he has been permitted under KLU Order, he cannot be exempted from applying under Section 27A. As seen from 27C (2), reassessment of land tax under Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act can only be in accordance with Section 27A. The KLU Order does not contemplate reassessment based on change of utilisation. The law laid down by this Court in Panchayat v. Mariumma ( 2015 (2) KLT 516 ) was in the absence of any statutory provisions governing the matter. In Mariumma’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court directed reassessment of land tax in the absence of law. In the light of Section 27C (2), the only mode of reassessment of land tax is on change of utilisation in accordance with Section 27A. 15. Under Rule 12(17) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, provision has been made to levy fees for regularisation at 25% of the scheduled fee in respect of a land, which has been permitted to be utilised by an order under clause 6(2) of Land Utilisation Order. This is obviously to cover land, in respect of which orders have been obtained as on 30/12/2017. This Court in Fr. Jose Uppani v. District Collector ( 2020 (3) KLT 492 ) and Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. (M/s) v. Revenue Divisional Officer ( 2020 (4) KHC 764 ) struck down such levy. Therefore, no levy is possible, if the holder of land obtains order prior to 30/12/2017 under Land Utilisation Order. 16. The Division Bench under reference relying on the judgment in Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors v. Ganges Rope Co. Therefore, no levy is possible, if the holder of land obtains order prior to 30/12/2017 under Land Utilisation Order. 16. The Division Bench under reference relying on the judgment in Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd & Ors ( (2004) 1 SCC 663 ), was of the view that an application pending on 30/12/2017 will have to be considered in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of consideration. It is noting the dictum in Howrah Municipal Corporation’s case (supra), the matter has been placed before the larger Bench. 17. If the application has been submitted prior to 30/12/2017, the applicant has a legitimate expectation for consideration of his application. That legitimate expectation can be defeated only based on overriding larger public interest. The delay occasioned on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot result in the denial of legitimate expectation of such an applicant. Legitimate expectation will not be available only when such action rests on public interest. The Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [ (1993) 1 SCC 71 ], Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi Development Authority and Others [ (2009) 1 SCC 180 ], Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2006) 8 SCC 381 ] and Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [ (1999) 4 SCC 727 ] invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation when someone had relationship with authority concerned and upheld such expectation if it is reasonable, subject to any consideration outweighing larger public interest. In the absence of larger public interest, the public authority cannot deny consideration of the application filed before 30/12/2017 under KLU Order before the Collector. It is to be noted that no public interest is secured to be achieved by levying the fees. 18. In the absence of larger public interest, the public authority cannot deny consideration of the application filed before 30/12/2017 under KLU Order before the Collector. It is to be noted that no public interest is secured to be achieved by levying the fees. 18. Under Section 27A(13) of the Paddy Act, it is stated as follows: “Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisional of the Act.” The above fortifies that clause 6(2) application under KLU order will have to be considered and incorporation of Section 27A does not bar the Collector in considering the pending applications and the bar is only to entertain applications after commencement of section 27A. 19. Thus, it is clear that all applications in regard to change of nature of unnotified land can be only in accordance with Section 27A after 30/12/2017, the date on which section 27A was notified. The Collector has no power under Clause 6 of the KLU Order to receive any application to utilise land for other purposes after 30/12/2017 as his power under clause 6(2) has been taken away by Section 27A(13). 20. On the other hand, levy of fees from applicants, whose application was not considered and as against the applicants, whose applications were considered before 30/12/2017 would amount to discrimination. Therefore, we are of the view that, land holders whose applications are pending as on the date of incorporation - 30/12/2017, are also entitled for the benefit of Rule 12(17) and no fee is leviable from them. In conclusion, we declare as follows : (i) The power of the Collector cannot be exercised under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in respect of the applications filed after 30/12/2017. The applications filed prior to 30/12/2017 will have to be considered for passing orders under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilisation Order in the light of law declared by Division Bench in Thomas V.J’s case (supra). (ii) The assessment of land tax under Section 6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act based on the order for utilisation of the land shall only be in accordance with Section 27A of the Act from 30/12/2017 onwards. (ii) The assessment of land tax under Section 6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act based on the order for utilisation of the land shall only be in accordance with Section 27A of the Act from 30/12/2017 onwards. (iii) All applications for change of use or utilisation of the unnotified land under Paddy Act shall be only in accordance with Section 27A of the Act. However, those who have applied prior to 30/12/2017, before the Collector under Land Utilisation Order and obtained order after 30/12/2017 will be exempted from payment of fees, similar to the land holders, who have obtained order under Land Utilisation Order in terms of Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Reference is answered as above. We direct the Registry to place the matter before the Bench as per roster.