JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. This writ appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner. The main challenge in the writ petition was against the order of the District Collector, Ernakulam, under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, 'KLU Order'). The District Collector considered the application under Clause 6 of KLU Order pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.35567/2016. 2. The District Collector noted that the land is a converted land planted with cultivating crops like Coconut, Jackfruit for quite a long time. Accordingly, the writ appellant was granted permission to utilize the land for agricultural purposes other than paddy cultivation subject to conditions. The conditions are enumerated as follows : 1. No reclamation should be carried out on the above land using earth or any other means. 2. No construction activities of any nature should be carried out on the above land. 3. Drainage to the uncultivated paddy land on the Western side of the above land should not be obstructed. 4. The cultivation of other crops should be done without causing any difficulties to the paddy cultivation in the neighbouring land. The application of Sri. Jacob N.V. is disposed of as above and the orders of the Honourable High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.35567/2016 is hereby complied with. 3. The appellant, aggrieved by the conditions noted as above, approached the Land Revenue Commissioner in an appeal. The Land Revenue Commissioner refused to interfere with the conditions so imposed. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Collector under KLU Order to utilise the land for purposes other than agricultural purposes by Ext.P15. In the writ petition filed before this Court, the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the conditions as above in KLU Order and also sought mandamus commanding the Collector to permit him to use the property for purposes other than agricultural purposes. The learned Single Judge only directed the consideration of Ext.P15, the request for using the land for purposes other than agricultural purposes. This is how the appellant approached this Court in this appeal. 4. The purpose and object of KLU Order are to ensure the production and distribution of food crops mentioned under KLU Order. KLU order is a subordinate legislation issued under the Essential Commodities Act, a Central Legislation. This is how the appellant approached this Court in this appeal. 4. The purpose and object of KLU Order are to ensure the production and distribution of food crops mentioned under KLU Order. KLU order is a subordinate legislation issued under the Essential Commodities Act, a Central Legislation. The scheme of the Essential Commodities Act will not come into operation unless there is a scarcity of food relatable to the crops mentioned in KLU Order. Thus in order to augment food production, KLU Order vests the Collector with a power to direct the holder of the land to cultivate the land with such food crops as mentioned in KLU Order. This provision is only an enabling power for the Collector to direct the holder of the land to cultivate such food crops. The permission as envisaged under Clause 6 of KLU Order for the holder of the land to utilize the land for any other purpose has to be considered in the background of the Essential Commodities Act and KLU Order. If the Collector is of the opinion that the land is not required for cultivation of food crops, the Collector cannot withhold permission to the holder of the land to utilize the land for other purposes. The scope of enquiry as contemplated in such circumstances is whether the land is required for augmenting production and distribution of food crops as mentioned in KLU Order or not. It is to be noted that the utilisation of the land by a holder in accordance with law is not fettered by the provisions of KLU Order. The enabling power conferred upon the Collector is only to carry out the objectives of the Essential Commodities Act and KLU Order issued thereon. The Collector cannot put a fetter on the utilisation of the land by the holder of the land if the land is not required for cultivation of food crops. KLU Order cannot be used as an authority to put a fetter on the utilisation of the land by a landholder in accordance with law. Having found that the land is not required for any public purposes as envisaged under the Essential Commodities Act read with KLU Order, the Collector could not have imposed such onerous conditions on the right of the landholder to use the land for other purposes. 5. Having found that the land is not required for any public purposes as envisaged under the Essential Commodities Act read with KLU Order, the Collector could not have imposed such onerous conditions on the right of the landholder to use the land for other purposes. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order restricting an embargo on the appellant to use the land only for agricultural purposes with the conditions is manifestly illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned conditions in Ext.P10 order are set aside. Based on Ext.P10, the appellant is free to utilize the land in accordance with law without there being any other impediments. The appeal is allowed. In view of the above, subsequent order passed in the appeal affirming the impugned order is also set aside(Ext.P13).