JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 0.0202 hectares (4.991 cents) of land in Sy.No.592/3P of Nettisseri Village in Thrissur District, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider on merits Ext.P2 revision petition filed under Section 28 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the Act') against Ext.P1 decision dated 06.08.2018 of the 2nd respondent District Collector under sub-section (7) of Section 9, in an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9, against the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee under sub-section (5) of Section 9, on the recommendation made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, on an application made by the petitioner for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of a residential building. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to convert the aforesaid paddy land for the purpose of constructing a residential building. 2. On 24.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. On 29.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader sought time to address arguments as to the maintainability of Ext.P2 revision petition under Section 28 of the Act, in view of the provisions under sub-section (7) of Section 9. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether Ext.P1 decision of the 2nd respondent District Collector under sub-section (7) of Section 9 of the Act, in an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9, against the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee under sub-section (5) of Section 9, can be challenged in a revision petition filed under Section 28 of the Act. 6. 6. Relying on the judgments of this Court in W.P. (C).No.3774 of 2013; W.P.(C)No.20332 of 2013; and W.P.(C).No.40272 of 2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a revision under Section 28 of the Act can be entertained against the decision of the District Collector under sub-section (7) of Section 9, in an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9. 7. Section 9 of the Act, which deals with constitution of District Level Authorised Committee reads thus; “9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Auhtorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision: Provided that the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filing up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding ten cents in a panchayat and five cents in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be. (2) The District Level Authorised Committee shall consist of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Principal Agricultural Officer and three paddy cultivators to be nominated by the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be its Chairman and the Principal Agricultural Officer, shall be its Convenor; Provided that where there are more than one Revenue Divisional Officer in a District, the Collector shall nominate one among them to the District Level Authorised Committee. (3) The term of office of the nominated members shall be three years from the date of their assuming charge in the office. But after the expiry of the term they may continue in office till the succeeding members are nominated. (4) Nominated members may resign from the Committee at any time by giving letter under his hand to the Collector. (5) The District Level Authorised Committee shall take decision on the recommendations made available to it within one month. (6) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee, may prefer an appeal before the Collector within thirty days from the receipt of the decision, in such manner as may be prescribed. (7) The Collector shall take a decision thereon within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal and the decision of the Collector shall be final.” (underline supplied) 8. (7) The Collector shall take a decision thereon within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal and the decision of the Collector shall be final.” (underline supplied) 8. Under sub-section (5) of Section 9, the District Level Authorised Committee shall take a decision on the recommendations made available to it by the Local Level Monitoring Committee under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, on an application made for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of a residential building for the owner of the paddy land. As per sub-section (6) of Section 9, any person aggrieved by the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee may prefer an appeal before the District Collector, within thirty days from the date of receipt of that decision, in such a manner as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (7), the District Collector shall take a decision on an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9 within one month from the date of receipt of that appeal and the decision of the District Collector shall be final. 9. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 revision before the 1st respondent, invoking the provisions under Section 28 of the Act. As per Section 28, which deals with revision, the Government may either suo motu or on application from an aggrieved party call for the records of any act or proceedings of the Collector in any case under this Act, and pass such orders thereon, as it may deem fit. 10. It is well settled that non-obtante clause is a legislative device which is employed in an enactment to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found in the same enactment or some other enactment. 11. In the instant case, non-obstante clause which existed in sub-sections (1) and (8) of Section 9; subsection (1) of Section 10; sub-section (1) of Section 13; Section 14; sub-section (8) of Section 16; sub-section (2) of Section 24; sub-section (2) and (6) of Section 27A; and sub-section (1) of Section 27C of the Act is conspicuously absent in Section 28. In the instant case, non-obstante clause which existed in sub-sections (1) and (8) of Section 9; subsection (1) of Section 10; sub-section (1) of Section 13; Section 14; sub-section (8) of Section 16; sub-section (2) of Section 24; sub-section (2) and (6) of Section 27A; and sub-section (1) of Section 27C of the Act is conspicuously absent in Section 28. In the absence of non-obstante clause, Section 28 of the Act does not have an overriding effect over sub-section (7) of Section 9, and therefore, the decision of the District Collector in an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9 cannot be challenged in a revision filed before the Government under Section 28 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent District Collector by filing a revision before the 1st respondent State, invoking the provisions under Section 28 of the Act. 12. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State to consider on merits Ext.P2 revision petition, as no mandamus can be issued to do something contrary to law. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, he has to challenge the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising appropriate grounds. 13. Insofar as the decisions of this Court in W.P. (C).No.3774 of 2013; W.P.(C).No.20332 of 2013; and W.P.(C).No.40272 of 2016 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, those decisions were rendered without noticing the finality attached to the decision of the District Collector in an appeal filed under sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the Act, in view of the provisions under sub-section (7) of Section 9 and also the absence of non-obstante clause in Section 28. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising appropriate grounds.