JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioner and his wife are the owners in possession of a property having an extent of 2 Hectares, 05 Ares and 48 Square Meters comprised in Survey Nos. 377/3-2, 377/4-3, 377/3-1-2 and 377/2 of Karumalloor Village. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Ext.P10 order passed by the 3 rd respondent herein by which the application submitted by the petitioner in Form A under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act was rejected. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Earlier, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner submitted an application before the 1 st respondent, under Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilization order, 1967 seeking permission to utilize a portion of the property having an extent of 4.6 Acres of land (1 Hector and 64 Ares and 30 Square Meters) for non agricultural uses. Acting upon the said application, the 1 st respondent passed Ext.P2 order by which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was permitted to utilize the property having an extent of 4.6 Acres comprised in Survey Nos.377/4, 377/3-2, 377/3-1 and 377/2, for the purpose of establishing a sawmill in the said property. According to the petitioner, the property was thus reclaimed and buildings were constructed for the said purpose. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form A for reassessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the 3 rd respondent. However, as per Ext.P10 order, the same was rejected mainly on finding that, Ext.P2 order cannot be treated as an order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization order. It was also found that, even though Ext.P2 order was passed granting permission to the petitioner to utilize the said property for establishing a sawmill, the petitioner/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner utilized the said property for constructing a godown having an area of 7615.16 Square Meters and therefore, the same is amounting to violation of the said order. Moreover, the 3 rd respondent insisted for an order under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for considering the application. It was in these circumstances this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P10. 3. Moreover, the 3 rd respondent insisted for an order under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for considering the application. It was in these circumstances this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P10. 3. A statement was submitted on behalf of the 3 rd respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition, wherein the averments were incorporated justifying the stand taken by the 3 rd respondent in Ext.P10 order. It was reiterated that, as the Ext.P2 order permitted the petitioner to use the property only for a specific purpose, namely to establish a sawmill, the petitioner could not have utilised the said property for any other purposes. However, it was averred that, the property is not included in the Data Bank. 4. I have heard Sri.Sherry J. Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri.C. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. 5. The crucial question that arises for consideration, is whether the stand taken by the 3 rd respondent in Ext.P10 that, Ext.P2 cannot be treated as an order passed under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order is sustainable or not. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent, it is explained that, as per Ext.P2, what was granted by the District Collector is only a license to run a sawmill, which cannot be counted as an order under Clause 6 (2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. 6. However, after considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, the same is not sustainable. On perusal of Ext.P2, it is evident that, even though the statutory provision based on which the said order passed, is not specifically referred to, it is to be noted that the only provision that enables the District Collector to exercise jurisdiction on an application submitted by the petitioner was Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilization Order. Evidently, before taking a decision, an enquiry was conducted by calling for report from the Agricultural Officer with regard to the existence of the nearby paddy land, the nature of the properties and also as to whether the property is fit for paddy cultivation. Evidently, before taking a decision, an enquiry was conducted by calling for report from the Agricultural Officer with regard to the existence of the nearby paddy land, the nature of the properties and also as to whether the property is fit for paddy cultivation. Therefore, it is clear from the nature of the enquiry conducted, as evidenced by Ext.P2, that, the consideration of the application was made by invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 7. Moreover, it cannot be treated as a mere license granted by the District Collector to establish a sawmill in the said property, as averred in the statement submitted by the respondents. A careful reading of Ext.P2 would indicate that, after conducting an enquiry in the manner as referred to above, the District Collector granted permission to utilize the property for non- agricultural purposes even though that purpose was confined to sawmill alone. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the order was the one passed under Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilization Order and no other view is possible in respect of the same. 8. Another aspect highlighted in Ext.P10 order is the violation of Ext.P2 order in view of the fact that the permission granted in Ext.P2 was to utilize the property for the sawmill, but on inspection, it was found that the property was utilized for some other purposes as well. Of course it is true that, such a condition was imposed in the said order. However, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether is it possible for the 3 rd respondent to raise it as an objection while considering an application in Form A. As far as the Form A is concerned, it is an application for assessment of the property for tax and as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the said application was submitted by him on the strength of Ext.P2 order. Since Ext.P2 permitted the conversion of the land, by enabling the persons concerned to utlise the said property for non-agricultural purposes, it was necessary that the property is re-assessed in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act. Therefore, the scope of enquiry contemplated, while considering such an application is confined to the question whether there is a proper order enabling the change of nature of the property by a competent authority. Therefore, the scope of enquiry contemplated, while considering such an application is confined to the question whether there is a proper order enabling the change of nature of the property by a competent authority. Since I have already found that Ext.P2 is an order based under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 permitting the conversion of the property and thereby enabling the petitioner to alter the nature of the property from agricultural land to non-agricultural land, the same has to be given effect to by changing the nature of the assessment invoking jurisdiction under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. Therefore, beyond the same, the 3 rd respondent is not expected to conduct any further enquiry. If there is any violation, it is for the 1 st respondent District Collector to initiate further proceedings. 9. Another aspect to be considered is with respect to the condition imposed by the 3 rd respondent requiring the petitioner to obtain the order under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Even though no specific provision is mentioned in Ext.P10, it is evident that the 3 rd respondent was referring to Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 which provides for conversion of the property which comes under the definition of 'unnotified land'. In view of the fact that the petitioner's property is not included in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and also that the property is described as paddy land in the revenue records, it satisfies the definition of ‘’unnotified land’ as defined in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. However, the question that arises is, whether is it necessary for the petitioner to undergo the conditions imposed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to enable him to get the property reassessed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. 10. In this regard, it is to be noted that, the position of law is well settled in favour of the petitioner as per the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahsildar v. Renjith George [2025 KHC OnLine 7012] and the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in Jacob Boban v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1241] . In the said decisions, it was categorically observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that, in cases where the party concerned submitted an application under clause 6 (2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, prior to the introduction of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act,2008, with effect from 30.12.2017, it is not necessary to insist for the compliance of the conditions imposed under Section 27A. 11. In this case, it is evident that Ext.P2 order was passed as early as on 24.07.2009, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said decisions and therefore the property covered by Ext.P2 need not be a subject matter of the proceedings under section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. This would mean that, as far as the extent of property covered by Ext.P2 is concerned, it is not necessary for the petitioner to undergo the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and instead, he can pursue Ext.P6 application in Form A without the same. 12. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader in this regard, the extent of property covered by Ext.P2 is only 4.6 Acres which is 1.86 Hectares, whereas, Form-A submitted by the petitioner is only in respect of 2 Hectares, 5 Ares and 48 Square Meters. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner submitted Form A for the property not covered by Ext.P2 as well. As observed above, the benefit of Ext.P2 can be granted only in respect of the properties covered by Ext.P2 and nothing beyond the same. Therefore, even though on that reason Ext.P10 is to be interfered with, it is to be held that, the Ext.P6 can be considered only in respect of the extent of property covered by Ext.P2 order. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P10, with a direction to the 3 rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 application and change the assessment in respect of the extent of property covered by Ext.P2, after examining the genuineness of Ext.P2 order and also identifying the properties covered by the same, without insisting for compliance of conditions under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, if the properties are one and the same. As far as remaining property not covered by Ext.P2 is concerned, the petitioner will have to abide by the statutory stipulations contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from invoking his statutory remedies as far as the properties which are not covered under Ext.P2.