JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is stated to be the absolute owner in possession of 24.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.555/2 of Poyya Village in Kodungallur Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to grant permission for conversion [sic: change of nature] of the said land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to take a speedy decision on Ext.P5 application for conversion [sic: change of nature] of land. 2. Going averments in the writ petition, the petitioner's land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing registration No.912/2017 of Sub Registrar Office, Mala is not included in the data-bank prepared under the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner, viz., Chandran purchased the property by way of document No.1007/2008 dated 11.03.2008 executed by one Lilly. She purchased the said property from Paoulose and Elsy as per document No.3066/2006 dated 01.12.2006, who obtained that property by two separate documents, i.e., document No.2140/1976 (in respect of 43.500 cents) and document No.2141/1976 (in respect of 16.500 cents) executed on 05.08.1976 by one Ambookken Kunjuvareed Kochuvarkey and Ambookken Kochuvarkey Kunjuvareed. According to the petitioner, the said Ambookken Kochuvarkey Kunjuvareed obtained that property having a total extent of 16.500 cents as per Gift Deed No.1327/1974 dated 10.05.1974 from his father, Ambookken Kunjuvareed Kochuvarkey, whose title and right on the property is devolved from F Schedule in Partition Deed No.1950/1950 executed on 29.08.1950. The description of the land in that document of the year 1950 is 'garden land'. 3. On 19.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The description of the land in that document of the year 1950 is 'garden land'. 3. On 19.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for change of nature of land, which is one invoking the provisions under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, read with sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is not supported by any materials as per clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12. 6. Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted 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. Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act define the term 'conversion' to mean the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. Clause (xii) of Section 2 define the term 'paddy land' to mean all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals; clause (xviii) of Section 2 define the term 'wetland' to mean land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterised by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers; 7. Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land. Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land. As per subsection (1), on and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy and except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per subsection (2), nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation. 8. Section 27A of the Act, inserted by Act 29 of 2018 with effect from 30.12.2017, deals with change of nature of unnotified land. The said provision reads thus; “27A. Change of nature of unnotified land.-(1) If any 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 in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary: Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may prescribed: Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed. (4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation: Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies. (5) No permission under this section shall be necessary where the purpose for which the unnotified land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilized or attempted to be utilized is for paddy cultivation. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), no permission under this section shall be necessary for constructing a residential building having a maximum area of 120 square meters in a maximum extent of 4.04 ares of land or a commercial building having a maximum area of 40 square meters in a maximum extent of 2.02 ares of land: Provided that the construction of a housing complex or complexes or flats or multi-storied residential complexes shall not come within the meaning of residential building specified in this sub-section: Provided further that this exemption shall be granted only once. (7) The exemption under sub-section (6) shall be applicable only to owners of unnotified lands under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018: Provided that if the area of the residential building or commercial building exempted under sub-section (6) is subsequently increased by new extension, the exemption under sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the owner of the land as on the date of detection of the new extension shall be liable to pay fee as per sub-section (3). (8) Where conversion of an unnotified land is required for any public purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall submit a report to Government outlining the measures to be adopted to ensure that the reclamation shall not disrupt the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, and shall suggest such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure this. (9) The Government may, on receipt of a report under sub-section (8), issue permission to reclaim unnotified land for public purpose: Provided that where permission is granted, the Government may make necessary modifications to the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer as deemed fit: Provided further that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (10) The order issued under sub-section (2) and (9) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the lands and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded, the extent of the land in which water conservancy measures are to be adopted by the applicant and a sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order. (11) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, either suo motu or on the application of any aggrieved party, cancel any order issued under sub-section (2) if the conditions specified in the order issued therein are not complied by the applicant, either fully or partially. (12) No order of cancellation under sub-section (11) shall be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer unless the applicant thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (13) Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 9. (13) Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 9. Clause (xviiA) of Section 2 of the Act, inserted by Act 29 of 2018, with effect from 30.12.2017, define the term 'unnotified land' to mean the lands within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee (Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act) which have been included as paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in Village Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland under sub-section (4) of Section 5 or where data bank has not been published under the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5, the lands which have already been filled up on the date of commencement of this Act and are not paddy land according to the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre and the Local Level Monitoring Committee or where the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre is not available, lands which are not paddy land according to the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. 10. Similarly, clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act inserted by Act 29 of 2018, with effect from 30.12.2017 after re-numbering the existing clause (i) as clause (iA), define 'change of nature of unnotified land' to mean such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. 11. Sub-rules (1) to (17) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 prescribe a detailed procedure for consideration of an application filed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the report of the Village Officer concerned. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 12, an application submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, in respect of a property having an extent upto 20.23 ares shall be in Form 6, and that in respect of a property having an extent of above 20.23 ares shall be in Form 7. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 12, an application submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, in respect of a property having an extent upto 20.23 ares shall be in Form 6, and that in respect of a property having an extent of above 20.23 ares shall be in Form 7. The documents that have to be attached along with an application filed under Rule 12 is provided in sub-rule (2) and the requisite fee is prescribed in sub-rule (3). 12. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, provides that the application for change of nature of land filled up or naturally filled up before 04.07.1967 has to be submitted in Form No.9 and the documents enumerated in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) may be accepted as evidence to prove that the land was filled up for naturally filled up before 04.07.1967. The documents enumerated in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (14) are; (i) copy of title deeds which assert the fact that the land has been either naturally filled up or utilised for purposes other than agriculture before 04.07.1967 or (ii) legally valid agreements (including otti, kanam, etc.), executed in stamp paper in which it is recorded/asserted that the land has been either naturally filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture before 04.07.1967; (iii) receipt proving remittance of building tax with the Local Self Government Institutions for a building in existence on such land prior to 04.07.1967; or (iv) licence or such documents, if any, issued by any Government Officer or Government Agency sufficient to prove that such land has been either naturally filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture prior to 04.07.1967; (v) based on the age, oldness of standing trees, houses, ancient Kaavu, structures, etc. which are referred to in the application made for change of nature of unnotified land and the statement of witness in support of that fact. As per sub-rule (14) of Rule 13, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for an enquiry report from the Village Officer in order to take a decision in the matter and conduct site inspection, if found necessary. 13. As per sub-rule (14) of Rule 13, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for an enquiry report from the Village Officer in order to take a decision in the matter and conduct site inspection, if found necessary. 13. A reading of the provisions under sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules make it explicitly clear that an application filed in Form No.9 seeking change of nature of an unnotified land which is stated to have been filled up or naturally filled up before 04.07.1967 has to be supported by the materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) thereof. On receipt of such application, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to call for an enquiry report from the Village Officer and if found necessary, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to conduct site inspection. 14. On a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner is not supported by any materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12. 15. An application filed under sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules for change of nature of an 'unnotified land' filled up or naturally filled up before 04.07.1967 shall be made in Form.9, supported by the materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) thereof. If such an application is not in the prescribed form, i.e, Form.9 or if it is not supported by the materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall return that application forthwith and the applicant shall be directed to file an application in the prescribed form, along with the materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules. 16. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus; "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [ 1966 (1) SCR 120 : AIR 1966 SC 334 ], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144 : AIR 1962 SC 1210 ] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964 ]. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." (underline supplied) 17. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision read thus; "11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. : Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and Judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned -an interest which private litigants are apt to over look when striving for private ends. The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.-.......... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149 ], after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [ AIR 1966 SC 334 ], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Nalanda College [ AIR 1962 SC 1210 ] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964 ], this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports: "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ......... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant bank to declare their account as NPA from 31st March, 2000 and apply RBI guidelines to their case." 18. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus; "10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of its erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. ......." 19. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. Vide: State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [ (1996) 8 SCC 90 ], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ 1996 (9) SCC 309 ], Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [ (1996) 4 SCC 453 ], University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [ (1997) 10 SCC 264 ] and Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [ (2002) 2 SCC 560 ]. 20. In Vinod Kumar v. District Geologist and others [ 2019 (3) KHC 79 ] in the context of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, this Court held that if the application made seeking permission under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 for mineral transit pass is not supported by the mandatory documents as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the District Geologist in discharging his statutory obligations, so as to enable the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for considering that application. When the application made by the petitioner is not supported by the mandatory documents, as per the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, this Court cannot direct the District Geologist to consider that application in contravention of the statutory provisions, as no mandamus can be issued to do something which is contrary to law. 21. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, since Ext.P5 application is not supported by any materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent has decided to reject that application. 22. 21. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, since Ext.P5 application is not supported by any materials referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent has decided to reject that application. 22. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner, who has not chosen to make a proper application for change of nature of the land in question, under Section 27A of the Act, read with sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Rules, cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider that application and pass appropriate orders thereon, as no mandamus can be issued to do something which is contrary to law. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a proper application for change of nature of land, in the prescribed form, along with the materials, referred to in clause (i) to (v) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules and pursue that application.