JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners by the above three writ petitions challenge Circular No. 46848/P1/2016/ Revenue dated 22.12.2016. The essential challenge is against the restriction of conversion of user of lands, which are described as “paddy lands” in the Revenue records, but not included in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for brevity “Paddy land Act”]. The restriction is insofar as permitting conversion, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity “KLU Order”) only for construction of a residential house for the owner of the land, that too confined to 10 cents in Panchayat area and 5 cents in Municipality/Corporation areas. 2. The facts slightly differ. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017 were repeatedly before this Court and having obtained orders directing consideration of conversion of user, had been faced with orders of refusal; the last one impugned in the writ petition, for reason of the Circular of 2016. W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 is a case in which the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, which was transmitted to the 2nd respondent and left without any consideration. W.P. (C) No. 21438 of 2017 again challenge an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer [for brevity “RDO”] refusing to allow conversion of user despite a judgment of this Court in their favour. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Ravindran, appearing in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017, contended that in the teeth of the declarations made by this Court, in the earlier judgments inter-parties, and the clear factual finding that the land is not included in the data bank, there was no reason for the RDO to have declined the permission sought for under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. The Circular, it is argued, cannot fetter the discretion conferred on the District Collector/RDO under the KLU Order. It is pointed out that the Circular seems to have proceeded on the strength of an earlier order, G.O. (Rt) No. 157/2002/A.D. dated 05.02.2002, the effect and purpose of which was explained by this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph vs. Sub Collector, 2015 (3) KLT 182 . This Court in the cited decision also considered the provisions under the KLU Order and found that the Order of 05.02.2002 cannot control the provisions of the subordinate legislation. This Court in the cited decision also considered the provisions under the KLU Order and found that the Order of 05.02.2002 cannot control the provisions of the subordinate legislation. Clause 6 was found to have conferred a discretion on the District Collector/RDO to consider the conversion of user of lands in which cultivation has not been carried on for the last three years. 4. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in B. Rajagopala vs. S.T.A. Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1573 , Chandrika Jha vs. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 41 , Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank, (1991) 3 SCC 219 , Basheer vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, 2016 (2) KLT 108 and Sugathan vs. Shahul Hameed, 2006 (4) KLT 54 (F.B.) to bring home the well established proposition that the exercise of discretion conferred on a quasi-judicial authority cannot be fettered by directions or executive orders; which would be completely inconsistent with the well-accepted notion of judicial process. It is also pointed out that Paul J. Manjooran vs. Suhas, 2017 (2) KHC 967 specifically found the impugned Circular to be incapable of overriding the provisions of KLU Order. 5. Sri. Vincent K.C. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 would specifically point out that the Order of 2002, which is produced as Exhibit P10, was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2012 (3) KLT 333 only since the prayer in that case was for correction of Basic Tax Register (BTR) from “Nilam” to “garden land” for the purpose of construction of a residential house. The terms of Exhibit P10 have been read out to assert that while Exhibit P10 is a mere guideline, the presently impugned Circular clearly undermines the discretion conferred on the authority by the KLU Order. It is pointed out that the words employed in Clause 6 clearly indicates conversion for any purpose being permissible. Exhibit P10 only cautions the authorities insofar as not allowing conversion on artificial partitioning of lands into small plots and discouraging large scale conversion for commercial purposes. Exhibit P11 Circular (in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017) issued subsequent to Exhibit P10 is also pointed out, which clarifies the scope of Exhibit P10 order; which is not to fetter the discretion conferred on the District Collectors/RDOs. 6. Sri. Exhibit P11 Circular (in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017) issued subsequent to Exhibit P10 is also pointed out, which clarifies the scope of Exhibit P10 order; which is not to fetter the discretion conferred on the District Collectors/RDOs. 6. Sri. K. Reghu Kottappuram, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21438 of 2017 argues that the terms of the Circular even if brought in as amendment under the KLU Order, the same cannot be sustained for reason of it being beyond the rule making power permitted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Conversion of user, under Clause (6) of KLU Order has been held to be for any purpose including setting up of an industrial unit in Sunil vs. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham, 2012 (4) KLT 511 . 7. The learned Special Government Pleader, Sri; Hanil Kumar, appearing for the State would argue that the Government has issued the Circular only to ensure that there is no misuse of the provisions of the KLU Order especially in the context of the Legislature having subsequently come out with the Paddy Land Act. Preservation of paddy lands and wet lands are paramount for the well being of the community and for preservation of the environment and ecology. On finding large scale conversion of paddy lands and wet lands; detrimentally affecting the paddy production and also causing long standing damage to the ecology, the Legislature thought it fit to enact the Paddy Land Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the Paddy Land Act and the KLU Order specifically referred to the Government Order of 2002, in Jalaja Dilip and spoke with approval of the same when findings were entered on the basis of that Order. The present Circular is only a expansion of what was done by the Government in the Order of 2002. Clause 6 of the KLU Order was read out to assert that it speaks of a prior permission for conversion of user and there can be no post regularisation of a conversion done long years back. It is difficult to pinpoint the time of conversion and the indiscriminate number of applications under the KLU Order for conversion of user, prompted the Government to bring out the Circular. It is difficult to pinpoint the time of conversion and the indiscriminate number of applications under the KLU Order for conversion of user, prompted the Government to bring out the Circular. None can argue for the proposition that the District Collectors/RDOs have unguided power insofar as conversion of user of lands and the Government intended only a proper control on exercise of such power so as to avoid misuse of the same. 8. Learned Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, appearing for the 2nd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017, supports the Government and argues that there cannot be found absolute restriction in conversion of user by the Circular, which alone could be considered as a direct interference to the provisions of the subordinate legislation. This Court would have to consider whether the restriction imposed is reasonable or not and if the finding is that it is reasonable, there should be no interference made. On facts, the contentions of the party respondent, before the authority, as revealed from para 9 of the order at Exhibit P10, is specifically referred to. There has not been any consideration as to whether the land is a wet land, is the compelling argument advanced. History of enactments: cause and effect: 9. The history of KLU Order and Paddy land Act, has to be noticed especially with reference to the interesting argument advanced that; even if the amendments were brought under the KLU Order it cannot be sustained. Apposite is the discussion on the Scheme and Object of the KLU Order as made in Jalaja Dileep, which is extracted hereunder: “9. Scheme and Object of Land Utilization Order, 1967: The Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 ('KLUO' for brevity) was issued by the Government of Kerala under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (10 of 1955) at a time when India was facing food grain deficit and there were also some restrictions on inter-State movement of food grain. The object of KLUO is: (a) to bring occupied waste or arable lands likely to be left fallow during a cultivation season under cultivation with paddy or other food crops; (b) to prevent the conversion of any land cultivated with food crops for other purpose, except with the written permission of the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officers in case the powers of District Collectors have been delegated to them.” 10. There can be no dispute that the food grain deficit and the restriction on inter-State movement of food grains prompted the State Government to bring out the KLU Order. Those concerns have been largely effaced but there are graver issues as of now, being the preservation of environment and ecology; which however the State has no competence to legislate on. The KLU Order brought out under Section 3(2)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (“E.C. Act” for brevity) does not deal with the issue in that perspective. The E.C. Act by its nomenclature does not deal with the environmental and ecological issues and the field of legislation is sourced to Entry 33 of the Concurrent List (List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India); which confers power on both the State and the Union to legislate on matters with respect to “Trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution:” inter-alia of “(b) food stuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils.” 11. The Paddy Land Act is: “An Act to conserve 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.” Promotion and growth of agricultural sector though within the legislative competence of the State; sustaining the ecological system is not a power conferred on the State by Article 246, as enumerated either under List II or List III. Immediately it is to be noticed that there is no challenge to the Paddy land Act in the present case and what is impugned is a Circular issued under the KLU Order. The aspect of preservation of paddy fields to promote agricultural growth, which the Paddy land Act intends and the State has competence to legislate upon; is intrinsically connected with the challenge raised in the writ petition. The Circular has been issued to achieve this end; and to further the cause under the Paddy land Act, is the argument put forth by the State. The Circular has been issued to achieve this end; and to further the cause under the Paddy land Act, is the argument put forth by the State. Essentially the contention is that the course laid by the Paddy land Act has been impeded in so far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled in Jalaja Dilip that those paddy lands converted prior to 2008 are governed by the KLU Order, under which the District Collector/RDO is conferred with authority to order conversion of user of any land converted prior to the Paddy land Act. The restrictions for such permission as brought in by the Circular clears the path for the Paddy land Act to have full sway. This is not permissible since it would result in over ruling the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dilip and this Court's in Sunil; by an executive action. 12. Promoting and augmenting food crops production being the field of legislation under which the EC Act has been enacted, the KLU Order, in the words of Jalaja Dilip provides for the following: “10. Clause 3 of the Order provides that the State Government may direct, every holder of land shall grow over such portion of his land food crops such as paddy, fish, sugarcane, vegetables, tapioca, yarn, tea, coffee, cardamom, pepper, ground-nut cocoa and banana in addition to any crop he may have grown over such land. Clauses 4 to 7 postulate the role of Collector in implementing the object of the Act and the sanctions he can impose in case of non-compliance by holder of land. Clause 6 of the order provides that land cultivated with any food crop for a continuous period of three years shall not be converted or utilized for cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except with the written permission of the Collector. Clause 7 of the Order empowers the Collector to call upon any person who contravenes the provisions of KLUO to cultivate the land with such food crops and within such period as may be specified in the notice. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the Collector may, by order direct and arrange for the sale by public auction. Thus, the KLUO vests District Collectors with powers to enforce cultivation of food crops.” 13. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the Collector may, by order direct and arrange for the sale by public auction. Thus, the KLUO vests District Collectors with powers to enforce cultivation of food crops.” 13. The KLU Order specifically confer powers on the District Collectors to direct cultivation of a specified food crop under Clause 7, only if there is a contravention of sub-clause (1) or (2) of Clause 6. A contravention can be legitimately put against a land owner, only when the land has been under cultivation for a continuous period of three years; either immediately before the commencement of the KLU Order or at any time after the commencement. The burden is also on the District Collector to prove that there has been cultivation for a continuous period of three years, as has been held in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (para 10). The State in bringing out the KLU Order, contemplated in place, an administrative machinery; which has every details of the area, within its jurisdiction, under cultivation, the crops grown therein and an alert band of Officers who would step in, on a cultivation being stopped or a conversion being attempted. Sadly it was not so and hence the requirement for a subsequent legislation, the Paddy land Act. 14. The paddy lands remained so only in the revenue records and on cultivation of paddy, becoming a financially un-viable proposition, in reality they were utilized for other purposes. Restrictions of inter-state trade ceased and food grain deficit considerably came down. The problems facing the paddy sector in Kerala, according to Jayan Jose Thomas (Department of Humanities and Social Sciences IIT, New Delhi) in his Field Report on “Paddy Cultivation in Kerala” [Review of Agrarian Studies-Journal of the Foundation for Agrarian Studies (ISSN-2248-9002) ARCHIVE- Vol.1 No.2 July - December, 2011] are three fold; high cost of cultivation, low yield levels and higher price. Paddy cultivation is labour intensive, requires constant monitoring and timely availability of labour, which is crucial at the time of transplanting and harvesting. The shortage of labour in the agricultural sector; the percentage of which is far lesser than that of the Country as a whole and the high wages demanded, is by reason of migration to non-agricultural sector. The expansion of mass education, rapid growth of the construction and service-sector, according to the author is the cause. The shortage of labour in the agricultural sector; the percentage of which is far lesser than that of the Country as a whole and the high wages demanded, is by reason of migration to non-agricultural sector. The expansion of mass education, rapid growth of the construction and service-sector, according to the author is the cause. Coupled with the low productivity as compared to other States, the price of the produce has to be more, making it altogether financially un-viable. The Minimum Support Price (MSP) in Kerala is said to be far higher than that of the Country. There is also stiff competition from other cash crops which are more profitable. Above all, is the high density of population and the inflow of foreign exchange from migrant workers, both of which together, turn land into a speculative asset. Some paddy lands, hence were used for other cultivation and more employed to meet the real estate boom for the construction industry and rapid commercialization, in tune with the consumerism which spread over the entire State. This definitely affects the traditional agrarian economy of the State, where rice is the staple food and is detrimental to the environment and ecology. The Paddy land Act aims to augment rice production by including those lands cultivable, in a Data Bank prepared under Section 5 (4). Is the Paddy land Act a solution; is the question which has to be addressed; not by this Court but by the Government. This Court is compelled to make these observations taking into account the large number of litigation this one enactment has given rise to. 15. The Paddy land Act defines paddy land as land cultivated with paddy at least once in an year and those suitable for cultivation but left fallow. This Court in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774 found that merely for reason of a land being left fallow for many years it cannot be said to be un-cultivable and if a deliberate, viable action of reclamation is possible then it can be included in the Data Bank. But in cases where, for example, the land lies locked on all sides by converted lands the fact of inclusion in the Data Bank cannot by that alone stand against the conversion of user. But in cases where, for example, the land lies locked on all sides by converted lands the fact of inclusion in the Data Bank cannot by that alone stand against the conversion of user. There are also number of paddy lands which were converted long back and have been cultivated with other crops like, coconut, arecanut, plantain etc. Holders of paddy lands have filled it up also to make constructions, of residential and commercial buildings. This is the stark reality and probably, hence the legislature contemplated inclusion only of cultivable lands in the Data Bank. 16. The Paddy land Act, by Section 5(4)(i), empowers the Local Level Monitoring Committee, constituted under the Act, to prepare a Data Bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wet land within the jurisdiction of the Committee. This also has to be done with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of the satellite pictures. In practice, Data Banks have included many lands which were converted prior to the introduction of the Paddy Land Act and in the remarks column shown it to be “converted”. The deluge of litigation before this Court also indicates that the inclusion of lands has been done in a haphazard manner and the practical aspect of whether the land is cultivable has not at all been looked into. Subsequent to the Paddy Land Act, for effective implementation of the same the State has obtained satellite rights and has set up the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [KSREC], who verifies the satellite data and issues reports on land-use-change, over the years. The draft and notified Data Banks already prepared, obviously was without any satellite pictures as was mandated in the Act. Neither were the State Land use Boards or the Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions involved in such preparation. The totally unscientific manner of preparing the Data Banks without identifying cultivable lands, coupled with the unrealistic stance of the Government Officers has resulted in opening a virtual Pandora's box of litigation. 17. A more recent study, Dynamics of Paddy Cultivation in Kerala by Mukesh K. Lecturer in Economics, Calicut University Center, Kadmat, Lakshadweep published in EPRA International Journal of Economic Review, January 2015 Vol.3 Issue-1 has also been perused by this Court. 17. A more recent study, Dynamics of Paddy Cultivation in Kerala by Mukesh K. Lecturer in Economics, Calicut University Center, Kadmat, Lakshadweep published in EPRA International Journal of Economic Review, January 2015 Vol.3 Issue-1 has also been perused by this Court. The report is said to be based on secondary data from the publications of the State Planning Board, Department of Economics and Statistics Government of Kerala, Kerala Agricultural University, Rice Research Centre, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad, etc. It notices that due to the serious intervention of the Government almost 1500 hectors of land kept fallow for 2 to 5 decades was brought under cultivation and the rice production increased by 1.25 lakh tonnes. Even then the statistics reveal that there is a steady decline of the total area under paddy cultivation and the production over the years. The intervention of the Government has borne fruit more in employment of better agriculture practices and there is no significant impact of the Paddy land Act that has been discussed in any of the studies. The Department of Economics and Statistics, Kerala Government has been carrying out periodic census and the report on 9th Agricultural Census, 2010-11 has been perused by me, as produced by the learned Government Pleader. The Department too has not dealt with the impact of the Paddy Land Act. The relevant statement made under the heading “Land Utilization Pattern 2010-11 under the sub-heading “Cropping Pattern” is that “paddy cultivated area decreased from 12.06% in 1995-96 to 11.21% in 2000-01 to 10.72% in 2005-06 and to 8.8% in 2010-11.” The paddy production has shown no considerable increase; but the writ petitions have trebled. 18. This Court on any given day, issues 10 orders seeking reports from the LLMC and the KSREC on writ petitions filed by the land-holders for exclusion from the Data Bank and directs consideration of conversion of user under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. On the basis of the reports of the LLMC and the KSREC, this Court has also been granting the relief. The State has obtained the satellite rights expending considerable amount of money and this Court is informed; has resorted to contractual employment of trained personnel in KSREC, to meet the high demand for satellite pictures, which are issued for nominal fees. The State has obtained the satellite rights expending considerable amount of money and this Court is informed; has resorted to contractual employment of trained personnel in KSREC, to meet the high demand for satellite pictures, which are issued for nominal fees. Serious introspection is required as to whether the price paid is worth the result it seeks to achieve; especially in a thickly populated State like Kerala with unique social characteristics. The money spent, time and effort expended by the Officers of the Government and this Court, raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the enactment. 19. In this context, apposite would be a reference to Jafarkhan vs. Kochumarakkar, 2012 (1) KLT 491 where a Division Bench spoke so: “5. Before parting with the matter, what we notice is that there is no provision in the Act to help owners of paddy land and wet land which have been rendered unfit for cultivation on account of conversion of adjoining paddy land by it's owners before commencement of the Act. In other words, those who have converted paddy land prior to the commencement of the Act cannot be called upon to restore such land to paddy land under this Act. However, as a consequence of such conversions, paddy land of many other adjoining owners have been rendered unfit for cultivation and by virtue of the provisions of the Act, they are not able to convert and utilise their land for any other purpose. This is certainly injustice to such helpless paddy land owners who are now glorified owners of paddy land or wet land without any returns therefrom. People with muscle and money power and political or official patronage have been converting paddy land in violation of the Land Utilisation Order and while such conversions got regularised, the less influential nearby owners are helpless owners unable to utilise their paddy and wet lands rendered unfit for any use. In our view, wherever paddy or wet land has become unfit for cultivation viably, such land should be permitted to be converted for suitable use instead of allowing it to be retained as waste land. Government Pleader will forward copy of this judgment to the Government for their consideration.” 20. In our view, wherever paddy or wet land has become unfit for cultivation viably, such land should be permitted to be converted for suitable use instead of allowing it to be retained as waste land. Government Pleader will forward copy of this judgment to the Government for their consideration.” 20. Following Jafarkhan, this Court in paragraph 17 of Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. found that after inclusion in the Data Bank, looking at the ground realities emphasized by the binding precedents of this Court, if the preservation of lands as such, is found to be impracticable, the authority could delete such lands from the Data Bank. It was observed that: “Again it has to be noticed; as far as back in Jafarkhan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court cautioned the State Government and brought to its notice the obvious anomalies in the legislation, which the Government has not thought fit till today to address or bring to the notice of the legislature or make sufficient amends in mitigation of the obvious injustice pointed out by this Court.” 21. There is an apparent discordant note and a glaring anomaly evident in the Paddy Land Act and the KLU Order. As was noticed, the intention is to promote agricultural growth and paddy production. The KLU Order deals with all food crops and prohibits any conversion of the crop cultivated without permission from the District Collector, if such crop has been cultivated for three years. In such event, the District Collector can also take proceedings to auction the right to cultivate such lands. However there is no power conferred on the District Collector to direct resumption of the lands or resume the land at the expense of the land holder in the KLU Order. If, for example, it is a paddy land and the same is converted prior to 2008, then an auctioneer would have to first resume the land at his expense and then cultivate, which is downright impossible, since paddy as such is not a financially viable cultivation. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that there can be no post conversion of user. 22. As for the Paddy Land Act, the District Collector has the power to direct resumption of lands and on failure, to resume lands at the expense of the landholder. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that there can be no post conversion of user. 22. As for the Paddy Land Act, the District Collector has the power to direct resumption of lands and on failure, to resume lands at the expense of the landholder. But there is no authority conferred to cultivate the land or auction the right to cultivate. The local authority or a third party, as per Section 16, can only effect cultivation in such land with the consent of the landholder. The anomaly is in so far as both the enactments; though aimed at promotion of agricultural growth, is toothless insofar as achieving the purpose. What could best be done under both enactments is an effective restriction of enjoyment of the property by the landholder. If conversion of user is prevented, there should be some method by which the land is put to cultivation. Otherwise, as has been noticed in Puthan Purakkal Joseph, there would be a stalemate. 23. For paddy lands converted prior to 2008 if under the KLU Order, conversion is declined, that alone cannot promote agriculture production. The State, having stepped in to deny the valuable right of enjoyment of property, by putting it to any legitimate use, cannot then remain a mute spectator. The proceedings to direct cultivation and on failure, to auction such rights, under Clause 7, can only be exercised when there is violation of Clause 6. In finding violation of Clause 6, the District Collector would have to establish that the land was cultivated continuously for three years at any time after the KLU Order came into force. It would be foolish to hold that even if the land was so cultivated in 1967 and left fallow after that, the District Collector could invoke Clause 7. Invocation of Clause 7 should be immediately after the continuous cultivation has ceased. If the State is desirous of resuming cultivation in such lands it should take appropriate steps, to cultivate such lands, after paying reasonable compensation to the land holder for limited or complete deprivation of land. The limited deprivation is compensated by sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 of the KLU Order. If the State is desirous of resuming cultivation in such lands it should take appropriate steps, to cultivate such lands, after paying reasonable compensation to the land holder for limited or complete deprivation of land. The limited deprivation is compensated by sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 of the KLU Order. However if none comes forward to auction the land and if cultivation is not a financially viable action, any restriction made to the legitimate enjoyment of land would result in illegal deprivation of the right of the land holder. This is the case with the Paddy land Act also, which does not even contain a provision for such cultivation without the consent of the owner. This Court can only hope that the Government would look into the observations made herein and bring in corrective measures. 24. While setting aside the Circular, this Court cannot but make some observations on how the applications, for conversion of user, under Clause 6 of the KLU Order have to be dealt with. Paddy Land Act never contemplated inclusion of lands which are not cultivable, but inclusions have been made of converted lands too, merely for the reason that they are so described in the revenue records. When such lands are sought to be used for any other purpose, then the only consideration possible under Clause 6 of the KLU Order is as to whether the lands, as they exist now are cultivable and whether there was cultivation for a continuous period of three years. The cultivation for three continuous years will have to be specifically established by the District Collector/RDO on reports obtained from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer. If the lands are not cultivable and exist as converted, the District Collector/RDO has to necessarily permit conversion of user. There is also no power conferred on the authority to permit conversion for use in a particular manner. The authority under the KLU Order cannot decide as to whether the conversion is for making a residential or commercial building. When the land is found to be not cultivable, it is the land holders' choice to put it to any legitimate use, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The authority under the KLU Order cannot decide as to whether the conversion is for making a residential or commercial building. When the land is found to be not cultivable, it is the land holders' choice to put it to any legitimate use, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Data Bank prepared have to be revamped including only cultivable lands and the State has a duty through the District Collectors to put the land into cultivation by itself or through third parties. The impugned Circular: 25. The bulwark of the State's contention to sustain the impugned Circular is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep. It is contended that the present Circular is only an off-shoot or a modification of the Order of 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically approved the Order of 2002 and the restrictions made there-under, as seen from paragraph 17 of the judgment. The present Circular being only in modification of the same, cannot at all be assailed by the petitioners, is the argument. 26. Immediately it has to be noticed that the Order of 2002 or the validity of the same never came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the provision for rectification of mistakes as found in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 would enable correction of the description of the property in the Revenue records, from “paddy land” or “wet land” to “garden land.” In the Civil Appeal, from the concurrent decisions of this Court, which permitted such correction, it was found that “the KLU Order and the Paddy Land Act deal with delineated areas with respect to preservation, management and process of reclamation of agricultural and paddy land for any other legitimate use (sic) [para 18]. Having elaborately dealt with the scheme and object as also the provisions of both the legislation, it was held that when a land is not included in the data bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act and if it is not paddy land or wet land as defined under the Paddy Land Act at the time of commencement of that Act; but the classification is noted as “Nilam” in the revenue records, the provisions of KLU Order will be applicable. 27. 27. The Collector, as defined under the KLU Order, was empowered to grant permission to utilise the land for other purposes and such request has to be examined on merits, on a case to case basis. Here the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 17 used the words “such request for residential purpose” and also referred to the order dated 05.02.2002, wherein certain restrictions were made “inter-alia to ensure that conversions which are likely to render irrigation investments infructuous and large scale conversion for commercial purpose are not allowed.” This observation cannot be interpreted as the Hon'ble Supreme Court having restricted consideration only of requests for residential purpose, under Clause 6 of KLU Order. Reading the provisions of the KLU Order and the Circular of 2002, which specifically directed the District Collectors to “generally allow conversion of land for construction of houses” that is only a passing reference. Neither the provisions of the KLU Order or even the Order of 2002 restricted the consideration under Clause 6 of the KLU Order only to those applications for conversion of residential purposes. The issue arose from an application made to the Tahsildar to effect a change in the BTR in the description of the land under the provision enabling the rectification of mistakes, which was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be not permissible 28. The provisions of the KLU Order has been elaborately considered by this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep. There is no appeal filed by the State from the said judgment and it has acquired finality. This Court had also noticed Sunil, a decision by a Division Bench of this Court, which permitted conversion for industrial purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also as per the extract in paragraph 18 contemplated process of reclamation of agricultural and paddy land for other legitimate use. Construction of residential buildings, industrial units, commercial buildings; all come under the legitimate use as the expression is generally understood and there can be no restriction imposed. The words employed by Clause 6 of the KLU Order specifically speaks of other purposes; which was interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep. 29. The words employed by Clause 6 of the KLU Order specifically speaks of other purposes; which was interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep. 29. In considering the sustainability of the impugned Circular, the contention based on the specific purpose intended by the Order of 2002 as clarified in Exhibit P11 produced in W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 assumes relevance. The Order of 2002 is not challenged and it creates no fetter on the statutory power in any manner. A reading of the Order of 2002 indicates that, the Government by a letter of 1997 [read as item No. 1] issued a directive to all District Collectors not to sanction any applications under the KLU Order, for conversion of paddy lands for other purposes, without their prior approval. Thereafter all such applications were dealt with by the Government; who, faced with a deluge, especially considering the delay and difficulty in processing the applications for conversion of small extents of land for homestead purposes, attempted a review by the Government Order of 2002, wherein it was specifically stated so: “It has also been pointed out that Governmental intervention in the exercise of quasi- judicial functions of District Collectors/Revenue Divisional Officers under the statute (the KLU Order) through an administrative direction may not be appropriate.” This Court can only wonder as to why the Government's wisdom, as rightly expressed in the above extract, got eroded at the time of issuance of the impugned Circular. 30. In consultation with the District Collectors and the Principal Agricultural Officers, the Order of 2002 proceeded to withdraw the directions of 1997 and cautioned the District Collectors, to ensure that no conversion likely to render irrigation investments infructuous be allowed and discouraged large scale conversion for commercial purposes [Clause 3.2]. In permitting conversions, it was directed that drainage to nearby plots be not blocked or rendered impossible [Clause 3.3]. The conversion of land upto 5 cents for construction of houses was encouraged and directed to be allowed, subject to caution against large scale conversions by sub-division of plots into 5 cents [Clause 3.4]. The Revenue machinery at the Taluk and Village level, were alerted to ensure that no conversions occur in future without a permit, so as to enable a claim of fait accompli [Clause 3.5]. The Revenue machinery at the Taluk and Village level, were alerted to ensure that no conversions occur in future without a permit, so as to enable a claim of fait accompli [Clause 3.5]. Government also kept itself open to suggestions for making the KLU Order more effective [Clause 3.6]; which exercise seems to have been not done in the proper manner. 31. As has been already found, there is no fetter on the quasi-judicial power conferred under the KLU Order, by the Order of 2002. It specifically withdrew an earlier Government Order prohibiting conversions without prior approval; finding the Government to have no such power conferred. It is also to be noticed that subsequent to the Order of 2002, the Government, by Exhibit P11 dated 04.07.2002, produced in W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017; presumably on grievances raised, informed the District Collectors that the Order of 2002 cannot be taken as restricting conversion of lands in excess of 5 cents. This clarification was to ensure that the statutory authority is not in any manner fettered and the exercise of judicious consideration given full play; which has been given a complete go-by in the present Circular. 32. The reliance placed on the Order of 2002 to sustain the impugned Circular cannot at all be countenanced. The restriction made insofar as construction being confined to 10 cents in Panchayat area and 5 cents in Municipality/Corporation areas; that too confined to residential buildings, puts fetters on and restricts the power conferred under the KLU Order. The decisions as relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, of fetters being made on the power of the statutory authority, exercising quasi-judicial powers, being inconsistent with the well-accepted notion of judicial process, squarely applies in the present case. The Government too, in the Order of 2002, was well aware of the above proposition; but ignored it while issuing the impugned Circular. The Circular impugned, is without any authority and it stands set aside. W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017 33. The petitioners together own 23.66 Ares of land in Chengannur Village, comprised in Re-survey Nos. 190/6 and 190/6-1, 190/6-2 and 186/2-1-2 and 186/40; in Block 8. It lies adjacent to M.C. Road and is asserted to be a part of a substantial extent of land wherein various buildings, including shopping complexes, residential complexes, etc. exist. The petitioners together own 23.66 Ares of land in Chengannur Village, comprised in Re-survey Nos. 190/6 and 190/6-1, 190/6-2 and 186/2-1-2 and 186/40; in Block 8. It lies adjacent to M.C. Road and is asserted to be a part of a substantial extent of land wherein various buildings, including shopping complexes, residential complexes, etc. exist. The petitioners first obtained Exhibit P1 and then, a revised building permit Exhibit P2 under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 [for brevity “Building Rules of 1999”] and commenced construction. Then based on a complaint that 14 cents of land on which the construction is carried out is “Nilam” a stop-memo was issued at Exhibit P3. The petitioners produced Exhibit P4 and P5 certificates of the Agricultural Field Officer and Village Officer to the effect that the land is not included in the data bank. 34. The petitioners then approached this Court with W.P. (C) No. 24351 of 2016, which was disposed of by Exhibit P6. The complainant before the Municipality, one Residents' Association, was also impleaded as the additional 4th respondent. This Court, in Exhibit P6 judgment, relied on Exhibits P4 & P5 certificates, to find that the land is not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act for the area. The objection was found to be only that 14 cents of the total extent of 26.3 Ares is described as “Nilam” in the Basic Tax Register [for brevity “BTR”]. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep, this Court found that the petitioners had rightly approached the RDO with an application for conversion of user under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. The RDO refused to consider the application and directed the petitioners to approach the Agricultural Officer under the Paddy Land Act for inclusion of the property as a converted land in the data bank. Going by the decision in Jalaja Dileep, this Court found that, with respect to a land which is not included in the data bank, conversion of user has to be considered by the RDO under the KLU Order as has been laid down in Puthan Purakkal Joseph. The petitioners were allowed to carry on the construction as per the building permit. The petitioners were allowed to carry on the construction as per the building permit. The Clause 6 application was directed to be considered afresh and the relevant aspect to be looked into; was observed to be the actual lie and nature and whether the land was existing as a paddy land or wet land on the date of coming into force of the Paddy Land Act. 35. An appeal was filed from the said judgment, in which Exhibit P7 decision was rendered by a Division Bench. Exhibit P6 judgment was interfered, only with respect to the permission granted to continue the construction. The petitioners were directed to stop the construction till the RDO considers the issue. A date was fixed for hearing and the RDO directed to finalise the proceedings. The RDO rejected the application by Exhibit P8, finding that the subject property is not at the level of the other properties and there is nothing to prove that the filling up and conversion of land was done long back. There was no whisper about any cultivation having been carried on in the property at any time in the near future or for three years continuously. A challenge was made again before this Court against Exhibit P8, which was disposed of by Exhibit P9. This Court in Exhibit P9 found that it is now concluded as per the earlier judgments of this Court that the land in question is neither a wet land nor a paddy land for the purposes of inclusion in the data bank under the Paddy Land Act. Hence, any conversion for other purposes has to be sanctioned by the RDO under Section 6(2) of the KLU Order. The RDO was found to have examined the nature of the land to come to a conclusion that the land in question is a wet land for the purpose of refusing permission as sought for by the petitioner. The RDO was held to have gone behind the judgments of this Court. After setting aside the order, a fresh consideration was directed. The impugned order in the instant writ petition again rejected the application based on the Circular of 2016 produced as Exhibit P11, which was also impugned herein and has been now set aside. 36. The RDO was held to have gone behind the judgments of this Court. After setting aside the order, a fresh consideration was directed. The impugned order in the instant writ petition again rejected the application based on the Circular of 2016 produced as Exhibit P11, which was also impugned herein and has been now set aside. 36. This Court in Exhibit P6 found that the petitioners would be entitled to approach the RDO with an application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, which was affirmed by Exhibit P7. A second round of litigation also found in favour of the petitioners, holding that the “land in question, belonging to the petitioners, on which the petitioners propose to construct the building, is neither wetland nor paddy land for the purposes of inclusion in the land data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008” (sic). The contention raised by the objecting respondent that none has examined whether the land is a wet land or not is covered by the aforesaid declaration, which has attained finality. In the impugned order also, on an inspection, the authority has found in paragraph 12 that the land is surrounded by residential and commercial buildings. It is also categorically stated that the land in question is not suitable for paddy cultivation and not included in the data bank or draft data bank. It is also seen that on inspection it has been found that the surrounding lands of the land in question were paddy lands, which were converted years back in which the house sites of Yamuna Nagar Residents Association, the objector is also included. Only relying on the Government Circular impugned in the writ petition, the rejection was made at Exhibit P10. The above Circular has been set aside by this Court. For the reasoning as available herein above, the impugned order at Exhibit P10 is consequentially set aside to the extent it rejects conversion of user based only on the Circular. The findings as available in the impugned order otherwise favour the conversion of user. The RDO is directed to issue an order of conversion of user under Clause 6, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 37. The findings as available in the impugned order otherwise favour the conversion of user. The RDO is directed to issue an order of conversion of user under Clause 6, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 37. The petitioner owns different items of property, totaling an extent of 44.45 ares in Re-survey No. 190/3 in Block No. 15 of Thiruvarpu Village in Kottayam Taluk, which are stated to be lying contiguously as garden lands having standing trees of more than 15 years. Exhibit P1 is the receipt of tax payment. The extract of the data bank showing the property in the nearby survey numbers is produced as Exhibit P2. It is contended that the property is not included in the data bank. The petitioner moved an application before the RDO as per Exhibit P3 for conversion of user and change of categorisation of the land in the BTR, which was directed to be considered as per Exhibit P4. The Village Officer reported that there are existing trees in the property which is lying as a garden land and that there would be no environmental impact if the land is used as a garden land. As directed by the RDO, the Additional Tahsildar, Kottayam submitted a report at Exhibit P6. Exhibit P6 indicates that but for 44.45 Ares described as Nilam in the BTR, the balance property is described as garden land even in the revenue records. The RDO transmitted the entire files to the District Collector for consideration, as per Exhibit P7. 38. The non-consideration of the application by the District Collector is said to be for reason of the circular, which has been challenged in the above writ petition also. The Circular having been set aside, there is no reason to keep the matter pending. A report was called for from the LLMC, in the writ petition. The LLMC has inspected the property on 08.06.2017 in the presence of the Village Officer, Thiruvarppu, who identified the property. The lie and nature of the entire extent of 44.45 Ares is reported to be converted partially with raised bunds, on which coconut palms are planted. There is some water logging between the trenches. The adjacent properties are also said to be dry lands existing with buildings. The lie and nature of the entire extent of 44.45 Ares is reported to be converted partially with raised bunds, on which coconut palms are planted. There is some water logging between the trenches. The adjacent properties are also said to be dry lands existing with buildings. No paddy cultivation is carried out in the area for the last 30 years. The property of the petitioner is bounded on all sides by other properties, which are stated to be dry land. The property is also not included in the data bank. In such circumstances, there is no reason why the application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order be kept pending. The same shall be considered within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, by the District Collector before whom it is pending; in accordance with the observations herein above. W.P. (C) No. 21438 of 2017 39. The petitioner owns and possess 100.82 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 192/1 of Chemancheri Village in Koyilandi Taluk. The title deed is produced at Exhibit P1. The property is not included in the data bank, which is sought to be proved by production of Exhibit P2, extract of the data bank showing the inclusion of nearby properties in the data bank. The Fair Value Register, extract of which is produced at Exhibit P3, indicates the Government having categorised the property as a residential plot with private road access. The Possession Certificate as issued at Exhibit P4 shows the land as a wet land. The Village Officer, by Exhibit P5, has certified that the land is not included in the data bank. The petitioner was earlier before this Court with a writ petition, which was disposed of by Exhibit P10, directing the LLMC to issue a certificate that the land in question is not included in the data bank and the petitioner directed to approach the appropriate authorities under the KLU Order and the Land Tax Act, respectively for conversion of user and fresh assessment of the land as garden land. The RDO rejected the claim by Exhibit P11. Exhibit P11 indicate that the rejection has been made on the basis of the Circular at Exhibit P12. The Circular having been set aside by this Court, necessarily a fresh consideration has to be made. The RDO rejected the claim by Exhibit P11. Exhibit P11 indicate that the rejection has been made on the basis of the Circular at Exhibit P12. The Circular having been set aside by this Court, necessarily a fresh consideration has to be made. Exhibit P11 is set aside and the RDO is directed to consider the application afresh in accordance with the directions hereinabove, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 40. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.