JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. In this appeal filed by the State, we need to consider the question, whether an owner of two different plots of land purchased through separate documents prior to 31.12.2017, is liable to pay fees for regularisation under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008(hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Act') for the reason that plots are lying contiguous and the total extent exceeds 25 cents of land. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that no such fees is payable. It is challenging this judgment, the State has come up with this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner purchased 7.59 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/1 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The writ petitioner also purchased 3.23 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/2 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk, which is lying contiguous to the above property. The properties were purchased as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds dated 10.02.2011 and 30.04.2011. These plots remained as one compact single plot. Admittedly, these plots are converted land and in the BTR, the land was classified as 'nilam' except the 3.23 Ares of land covered by a document dated 30.04.2011. 3. The State of Kerala brought an amendment to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the 'Act') and incorporated it under Section 27A. Section 27A of the Act permits the owner of the converted land to regularise his land on payment of stipulated fees fixed by the Government. The Government, accordingly, prescribed the fees. As per the schedule for payment of fees, the writ petitioner who is the land owner is bound to pay the fixed fee as prescribed. 4. The Government, thereafter, issued an order dated 25.2.2021, exempting land upto 25 cents, from payment of fixed fee as per the schedule. This is seen from Clause-I of the above Government Order. As per the schedule for payment of fees, the writ petitioner who is the land owner is bound to pay the fixed fee as prescribed. 4. The Government, thereafter, issued an order dated 25.2.2021, exempting land upto 25 cents, from payment of fixed fee as per the schedule. This is seen from Clause-I of the above Government Order. Sensing that there will be a misuse of the order by holder of larger extent of land having more than 25 cents of land, in the same order, the Government stipulated that those land owners who are having larger extent of land of more than 25 cents, after 30.12.2017 will not be entitled to the benefit of Clause-I of the above Government Order for exemption from payment of fees by fragmenting the land with smaller extent to claim the benefit. This is obvious to avoid misuse of the provisions of exemption by bringing down the extent of land to 25 cents of land or lesser to obtain the benefits. Clause-2 prevents the land owner from claiming benefit of Clause-I by fragmenting the larger extent to get the benefit of Clause-I. Clause-I allows exemption upto 25 cents of land. Though no reference has been made in respect of the total holding of 25 cents of land in Clause-I, it has to be understood with reference to the title claimed by the holder of land with reference to a document. This is exactly the reason that Clause-2 was incorporated to prevent holders of land based on the title having extent exceeding 25 cents of land may attempt in future to fragment the land to obtain the benefit of Clause-I. 5. If a person, at the time of the Government order dated 25.2.2021 has a different holding in the State in a small plot extending to more than 25 cents of land, they would be entitled to the benefit of the first clause for exemption if the land as per the holding covered by different documents is less than 25 cents. The holding as per the exemption has to be understood, to be qualified with reference to the title deeds of the party, the holder of the land. The holding as per the exemption has to be understood, to be qualified with reference to the title deeds of the party, the holder of the land. Though in practice, the property may lie contiguous and remain as a single plot, the benefit of exemption would be available to all such persons who hold the land by separate documents and the extent of land is 25 cents or less provided those purchases were prior to 30.12.2017. We also make it clear that those who are holding land beyond 25 cents of land as on 30.12.2017, based on a single title, will not be entitled for such benefit. The only possible interpretation, according to us, is that holding of the land has to be understood with the title deed of the parties concerned who claimed exemption. If the title deed of such holder of land indicates that the land is less than 25 cents of land, the holding covered by the title deed would be entitled for exemption of the fees. This is so also discernible from the circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department on 10.12.2021. 6. In the light of the above, we hold as follows: The holders of the land who purchased the land prior to 30.12.2017 by different documents and the land is less than 25 cents of land, that land would be qualified for exemption as per the Government Order dated 25.2.2021. We make it clear that the benefit of exemption is only to such holders of the land whose land even though lying contiguous but purchased or obtained by different title deeds, not having more than 25 cents, alone would be entitled to the benefit of exemption. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, we grant one month time from today to the appellants to comply with the order.