JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. The State has come up with this appeal challenging the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the District Collector, Wayanad, to take up the application for explosive licence de hors the fact that the land was originally exempted as a plantation under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the 'KLR Act'). 2. The learned Government Pleader assailing the judgment argued the matter in extenso. According to the learned Government Pleader, the consequence of conversion of the land for non exempted purposes would entail in resumption proceedings qua ceiling and, therefore, a land holder cannot be permitted to utilise the land for other purposes. The learned Government Pleader referred to various provisions of the KLR Act to highlight his arguments. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments : i. Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [ 2018 (4) KLT 913 (F.B.)]; ii. Aishabeevi and Another v. Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam and Others [ 2014 (3) KHC 678 ]; iii. Elias T.V. And Others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad and Others [ 2019 (2) KHC 881 ] and; iv. Kinallur Rock Sand v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (2) KLT 351 ]. He also submitted that a small extent of exempted land is being used as operational unit of explosives for the quarry. It is further submitted that the quarry is situated in another land. It is also submitted that the present application is for renewal of licence and the activity of the holder of the licence is of commercial nature and, therefore, the holder is qualified for exemption as well. 4. There is no dispute as to the fact that a licence has already been issued and, the present dispute has arisen in the context of renewal. 5. There is no embargo under law in using any exempted land for non-exempted purposes as well. If the land is used for non-exempted purposes, the holder of the land will lose the qualification for exemption, thus giving authority to the Land Board to initiate ceiling proceedings. The judgments cited at the Bar fortify the above legal proposition. The KLR Act provides no answer against conversion of the exempted land. Had it not been for the exemption, the land would have been included in the ceiling proceedings of the declarant for surrender. The judgments cited at the Bar fortify the above legal proposition. The KLR Act provides no answer against conversion of the exempted land. Had it not been for the exemption, the land would have been included in the ceiling proceedings of the declarant for surrender. The only plausible conclusion in this situation is that the Land Board will be in a position to initiate ceiling proceedings. If that be the case, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.