JUDGMENT : The case of the petitioners is as follows:- The petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties admeasuring 95.250 cents in Sy.No.78/5 and 28.660 cents in Sy.No.85/2 in Block No.17 in Kumbalam Village obtained by them as per Sale Deed No.513/2006 and 12.350 cents and 10 cents in Sy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village obtained as per Sale Deed Nos.1031/2010 and 5084/2005 respectively of the SRO, Maradu. Though the entire properties are lying as converted land, when the draft data bank was prepared, the properties in Sy.Nos.78/5 and 78/6 of the Kumbalam Village were mistakenly shown as 'nilam'. Also in the new data bank register prepared in the year 2013, the properties were wrongly described as 'nilam', though those were shown as 'purayidam' in the revenue records. On knowing about the mistake, the petitioners submitted Ext.P1 representation before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short 'LLMC') to conduct a site inspection and to correct the mistake in the data bank register. The inaction on the part of the fourth respondent constrained the petitioners to file WP(C) No.10985/2016 and as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.3.2016, this Court directed the LLMC to find out whether the land in question can be classified as paddy land or nilam or wetland as on the date of enactment of the Act 28 of 2008 and if it cannot be classified either as paddy land or nilam or wetland, necessary correction shall be carried out in the draft data bank. In pursuance of Ext.P2 judgment, the LLMC inspected the properties and as per Ext.P3 proceedings, decided to correct the petitioners' properties admeasuring 95.25 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/5 and 22.350 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village as converted land. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order') seeking permission to use their property for other purposes other than for cultivation. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, it was informed by the second respondent District Collector, as per Ext.P5, that the representation was forwarded to LLMC for necessary correction. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition. 2. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, it was informed by the second respondent District Collector, as per Ext.P5, that the representation was forwarded to LLMC for necessary correction. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition. 2. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9.10.2017 along with other writ petitions, which were filed stating that the properties owned by them, which are not liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been included in the data bank concerned and the prayer in the writ petitions was for appropriate direction for removal of the same. The said writ petitions were disposed of directing the LLMC under the statute to consider the application for removal of those properties from the data bank in the manner indicated therein. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, was concerning the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the KLU order in considering the application preferred by the petitioners under clause 6 of the KLU order, since there was already a report by the LLMC. 3. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed R.P No. 49/2018 before this Court for review of the Judgment dated 09.10.2017. This Court found that the property of the petitioners in the writ petition is not one included in the data bank prepared under the Act and the writ petition preferred by the petitioners should not have been disposed of along with the batch of writ petitions. Thus the review Petition was allowed and the common judgment, in so far as it relates to WP (C) No.18591 of 2007 was recalled. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The petitioners submit that the properties of the petitioners were decided to be corrected by the LLMC as converted land and Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 under clause 6 of the KLU Order seeking permission to use their properties for other purposes other than for cultivation was pending before the second respondent. It was further submitted that the second respondent was legally bound to consider Ext P4 representation in the light of Ext P3 proceedings of the LLMC and should not have forwarded the same to LLMC, since there is already proceedings of LLMC. 6. It was further submitted that the second respondent was legally bound to consider Ext P4 representation in the light of Ext P3 proceedings of the LLMC and should not have forwarded the same to LLMC, since there is already proceedings of LLMC. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in District Collector v. Fr.Jose Uppani [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 (DB)], held that the applications, which are filed under the KLU Order, prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017, are to be considered by the statutory authority in accordance with the procedure and terms and conditions contained in the KLU Order. 7. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in this case. 8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submission made across the Bar, I find that as per Ext.P3 proceedings, it was decided by the LLMC to correct the petitioners' properties admeasuring 95.25 cents in ReSy.No.78/5 and 22.350 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/6 of the Kumbalam Village as converted land. Thereafter, Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 was filed by the petitioners under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the second respondent, seeking permission to use their properties for other purposes other than for cultivation. Since, Ext.P4 was filed on 20.04.2017, the property holder is entitled to get his request for conversion of property considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of KLU Order since the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 only came into force on and w.e.f 30.12.2017. 9. The Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was issued by the Government of Kerala under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at a time when India was facing food grain deficit and there were some restrictions on the inter-state movement of food grain. The main objectives of KLU Order are as follows: “1. To bring occupied waste or arable lands likely to be left fallow during a cultivation season under cultivation with paddy or other food crops; and 2. To prevent the conversion of any land cultivated with food crops for other purpose, except with the written permission of the District collector or Revenue Divisional Officers, where the powers of District Collector have been delegated to them.” Clause 6 of the KLU Order reads as follows: - “6. To prevent the conversion of any land cultivated with food crops for other purpose, except with the written permission of the District collector or Revenue Divisional Officers, where the powers of District Collector have been delegated to them.” Clause 6 of the KLU Order reads as follows: - “6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop- (1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub clause and sub-clause (2), removal of tree growth, whether partial or total, on any land cultivated with cardamom shall be deemed to be an attempt to convert or utilise such land for a purpose other than cultivation of cardamom. (2) No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. Provided that except in the case of lands under cardamom cultivation, no permission under sub-clause(1) or sub-clause(2), shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is converted or attempted to be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised is paddy cultivation or fish culture. Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally.” 10. Thus, the KLU Order vests District Collector with ample powers and he is the competent authority to take decision in the application filed under the KLU Order. The petitioners have filed Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the second respondent-District Collector. Thus, the KLU Order vests District Collector with ample powers and he is the competent authority to take decision in the application filed under the KLU Order. The petitioners have filed Ext.P4 representation dated 20.04.2017 under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the second respondent-District Collector. As per Ext.P3 proceedings, the LLMC has already decided to correct the properties admeasuring 95.25 cents in Re.Sy.No.78/5 and 22.350 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/6 of the Kumbalam Village belonging to the petitioners as converted land. Therefore, needless to say, there was no necessity for the second respondent-District Collector to again forward the representation to LLMC as per Ext.P5, for necessary correction. In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext P5 issued by the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 representation under Clause 6 of the KLU Order seeking permission to use their properties for other purposes other than for cultivation, in accordance with law, taking into consideration Ext P3 proceedings of the LLMC.