ORDER : C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the applicants and Advocate Sri. Binoy Vasudevan for the respondent. 2. This is an application seeking orders condoning the delay of 768 days in filing the review petition. The respondents in the writ petition are the review petitioners. 3. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents, among others, to reassess the land of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition, after classifying the same as dry land. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that even though the direction in the judgment has been complied with by issuing an order on 18.03.2021 classifying the land as the same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1397 of 2024. It is also stated in the affidavit that the said writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to classify the land as ‘dry land’ as directed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, and on verification of the records, it was found that the land of the petitioner is included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act), as ‘nilam’. According to the respondents, if the land of the petitioner is one included in the data bank prepared under the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to reclassification and reassessment of the land without obtaining orders for removal of such entry from the data bank. It is stated that the delay occurred on account of the said reasons. 4. It is seen that although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same was stated to be reclaimed long prior to the Act, after obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that inasmuch as the land has been converted as dry land after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the petitioner is entitled to reclassification of the land as dry land, and reassessment of the land under the Land Tax Act, for the effective use of the same. It is that case of the petitioner that was accepted by this Court and the writ petition was disposed of as indicated above. It is that case of the petitioner that was accepted by this Court and the writ petition was disposed of as indicated above. The materials indicate that about two years after the disposal of the writ petition, in Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam v. M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (1) KHC 34 , a Division Bench of this Court held that if a land covered by a permission under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is included in the data bank prepared under the Act, an application for reclassification and reassessment of the same can be made only after removing the same from the data bank, and it is in the light of the said judgment, the review petition is filed. 5. Although it is not specifically stated in the judgment, the view taken in the case is that when a statutory order is passed in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 which is a subordinate legislation under the Essential Commodities Act, such an order cannot be nullified by a subsequent legislation, especially when the subsequent legislation does not contain a non-obstante clause. The said view may or may not be right, but it binds the parties, and a judgment rendered on that basis cannot be reviewed based on a subsequent conflicting decision of this Court for, it is now trite that a change of law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate Bench or a larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. If the earlier binding judgments are permitted to be reviewed based on subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate Bench, the law will be bereft of all its utility and in a state of uncertainty [See Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362 ]. The review petition, in the circumstances, is only to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, as an application seeking orders to condone the delay in filing the review petition cannot be dismissed on the merits of the matter, it is necessary to examine the sufficiency of the cause for the delay stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. As noted, the judgment sought to be reviewed has been accepted by the respondents and an order also has been issued in purported compliance of the same. As noted, the judgment sought to be reviewed has been accepted by the respondents and an order also has been issued in purported compliance of the same. The review petition was filed long thereafter, in the light of the decision of this Court in M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. As noted, the cause stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay is that when the records of the case were verified for compliance of the direction issued by this court in W.P. (C) No. 1397 of 2024, it was revealed that the property of the petitioner is included in the data bank. From the averments in the review petition and the grounds taken therein, it can certainly be gathered that a decision was taken to seek review of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1397 of 2024 and the judgment in the instant case, in the light of the decision of this court in M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. which held that the holder of a land which is included in the data bank, cannot seek reclassification and reassessment of the land without removing the same from the data bank. In other words, the subsequent conflicting decision is the cause for the delay in filing the review petition. A subsequent conflicting decision cannot be accepted as a cause, much less any sufficient cause, for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. The delay petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed.