JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P9 and P14 orders and for a consequential declaration that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P3 application is converted before 1967 and is eligible for necessary corrections in the revenue records. 2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows: The petitioner is a 71 year old senior citizen, holding 8.628 Ares of land in Resurvey No. 5-19-907/1 in Kasaba Village of Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The said property is situated within 50 meters northwards of Mavoor road in the heart of the Kozhikode city, walkable distance from the Municipal Mofussil Bus Stand, Kozhikode. Petitioner obtained the said property through 5 registered land deeds, ie., Deed Nos.1040/92, 978/93, 1046/93, 530/94 and 974/94. The above mentioned property was converted much prior to 1967 and the said property is having buildings even prior to the year 1944. The property, about 21.31 cents of land, was erroneously and falsely included in the data bank of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation as paddy land, when such a data bank was prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as 'The Act 2008'). The 5th respondent called for a report from the 4th respondent to verify the lie and nature of the property as on 04.07.1967 and 12.08.2008. The report of the 4th respondent was sought for the purpose of ensuring whether the property is a paddy land or wet land as per the satellite data. Ext.P1 report was submitted by the respondent before the Agricultural Field Office, Kozhikode specifically pointing out that the property of the petitioner was converted prior to 1967 and the plot was observed predominantly under plantation/mixed vegetation and building/structure in north-east side of the property and the same trend of landuse practices were continued till 2011 and 2014. It was specifically observed by the 4th respondent that, in 1967 data, the plots were observed under settlement. The 5th Respondent considered Ext.P1 report and made a specific observation that the property of the petitioner was a settlement even before 1967 and there were plantations and buildings from the year 2007. On the above said conclusion and based on the site visit, the 5th Respondent issued Ext.P2 order removing the said survey number from the data bank. The 5th Respondent considered Ext.P1 report and made a specific observation that the property of the petitioner was a settlement even before 1967 and there were plantations and buildings from the year 2007. On the above said conclusion and based on the site visit, the 5th Respondent issued Ext.P2 order removing the said survey number from the data bank. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application before the 3rd respondent for the purpose of correcting the revenue records to the effect that the property of the petitioner does not come within the purview of 'Nilam' in the revenue records. As per the provisions of the Act, 2008, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 application in Form No. 9 under Rule 12(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008. A copy of the Deed Nos.1362/1945, 498/1946, 183/1947 and 309/1952 were also produced along with Ext. P3 application. The property deed would show that the nature of the property is 'plantation / garden land' even in 1941 and it contains building and had 'kudiyirippu' rights over such building. Ext.P4 is the photocopy of one of the deeds, registered as deed No. 1362 of 1945. The petitioner submits that other deeds are not produced before this Court as most of them are in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4(a), copy of relevant pages of the Property Tax Assessment Register, obtained from the Records Division of the Kozhikode Corporation along with Ext.P3 application which shows that the property tax was levied from the said land and a building which was situated in Survey No. 19/930 and 930 in Serial No. 1078 and 1078(a) in Ward No. 5 of Kozhikode Corporation. The petitioner further submits that document No. 257/41 (produced before the 3rd respondent later as is seen from Ext.P8) would clearly show that there were plantations and buildings in the property. The property had 'kaanam kudiyirippu' rights in 1941, and it can only be on a building. “Kuzhikoor” “Chamayangal' are well defined, well accepted legal terminology in Malayalam which clearly describes or denotes the buildings/developments in the property even in the year 1941. Document No. 1362/1945 also clearly mentioned about the developments/buildings as 'Kuzhikooru Chamayangal' in the said property. The property had 'kaanam kudiyirippu' rights in 1941, and it can only be on a building. “Kuzhikoor” “Chamayangal' are well defined, well accepted legal terminology in Malayalam which clearly describes or denotes the buildings/developments in the property even in the year 1941. Document No. 1362/1945 also clearly mentioned about the developments/buildings as 'Kuzhikooru Chamayangal' in the said property. All these would show that even in the year 1941 and 1945, the physical nature of the wet land/paddy land was converted into settlements, as rightly observed by the respondent in Exhibit P1 and in Exhibit P2 orders. The respondent did not consider any of these factual aspects and rejected Exhibit P3 application, as per Ext.P9 order. Even though the petitioner had produced the death certificate of one Smt. Paru, which was issued in 1958, to show that she died from her residential house, which was situated in the property in question, the 3rd respondent erroneously observed that the word 'Kuzhikooru Chamayangal' denoted in the registered deeds have no evidentiary value and only to be seen as a style of writing of land deeds. The reason for rejecting the contentions of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent was that, there is water logging in the property at present and therefore, it cannot be believed that the property is converted before 1967. It is also erroneously observed by the 3rd respondent that there is no mentioning of the conversion prior to 1967 in Exhibit P1 report. After issuance of Ext.P3 application, the 3rd respondent has sought for a report from the Village Officer, Kasaba regarding the veracity of the application and the factual aspects of the same as to whether the said property is converted land prior to 1967. Ext.P5 report has been submitted by the Village Officer, Kasaba to the respondent detailing the lie and nature of the land. In the said report it is specifically stated that the said land is converted prior to 1967 and it was also reported that in the documents, the sale deeds produced as Deed Nos.1362/45, 498/46, 183/47 and 309/52 there is reference to 'Kuzhikooru' 'Chamayangal' in the said property. It is further reported that as per the KSRSEC report, the property was converted prior to 1967 and it was a residential property. It is further reported that as per the KSRSEC report, the property was converted prior to 1967 and it was a residential property. The 3rd respondent again sought for a report from the Village Officer as per Ext.P5(a) letter, wherein it is stated that even though in the earlier report it is stated that the four title deeds have been produced by the petitioner, the details of these deeds or as to whether the property which is covered by Ext.P3 application form part of this document is not seen in Ext.P5 report and therefore, a detailed report was directed to be submitted. Based on the said communication, Ext.P6 further report was submitted by the Village Officer stating that various land documents and registered deeds in the year 1945, 1947, 1946 and 1941, would show that the property was having buildings even in those years. It is reported by the Village Officer that one Smt.Paru had died in the year 1958 while residing in a residential house in the said property. It is also reported by the Village Officer that Ext.P1 report also ascertains the facts that the property is a converted land prior to 1967. It is also reported that after the death of Smt.Paru in a building in the property, the property was obtained by her son namely Chandran and the said Chandran had sold the property to the petitioner herein. It is also the contention of the petitioner that one Mr.Odat Babu, Son of Padmababhan, who was the predecessor of the property is question was summoned before the 3rd respondent and Ext.P7 statement given by him was also recorded, in which he stated that the said property was sold to the petitioner in year 1992 and the said property has been converted prior to 1967. Even though the petitioner made a specific request to summon other 2 witnesses, the 3rd respondent refused to do so. Ext.P8 is a file note of the office of the 3rd respondent, in which also it is noted that the petitioner is paying land tax and property tax in the said property from 1945 onwards. The only reason for rejecting the observation of the Ext. P1 report and the other documents produced by the petitioner is that the water logging in the property was observed at the time of the site visit by the officials. The only reason for rejecting the observation of the Ext. P1 report and the other documents produced by the petitioner is that the water logging in the property was observed at the time of the site visit by the officials. The petitioner contended that the present water logging in the property is only due to the absence of proper storm water drain and drainage system in Kozhikode town and that mere water logging cannot be a reason for rejecting the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P4 and P4(a). Challenging Ext.P9 order issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal before the 2nd respondent. On receipt of Ext.P10, the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P11 letter, has sought for a report from the Village Officer, Kasaba regarding the actual reason for water logging in the area and the physical status of the land prior to 1967. In turn the Village Officer has submitted Ext.P12 report wherein it is specifically stated that there are residential buildings in the said property even prior to 1967 and the water logging in the area is only due to the construction of a new road. The photographs were also attached to the said report by the Village Officer. In respect of Ext.P10 appeal, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P13 notice by the Deputy Collector(Land Reforms), Kozhikode, directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing. The petitioner appeared before the said authority and submitted that the power vested with the 2nd respondent cannot be sub-delegated to the Deputy Collector and the hearing by the Deputy Collector is a futile exercise. Thereafter, without even considering any of the contentions by the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P14 order. The petitioner submits that while issuing Ext.P9 order, certain entries made in the sale deed produced by the petitioner in support of his claim was not properly considered by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also approached the Kacheri Village Officer, seeking information regarding the legal sanctity and meaning of the words 'kudiyirippu' 'Kuzhikkanam' and 'Kuzhikkoor Chamayangal'. By Ext.P15(a) reply, the Village Officer, Kacheri specifically gave the exact meaning of the words 'kudiyirippu' 'Kuzhikkanam' and 'Kuzhikkoor Chamayangal', wherein 'Kuzhikkoor' 'chamayangal' was defined as buildings and trees . The petitioner also approached the Kacheri Village Officer, seeking information regarding the legal sanctity and meaning of the words 'kudiyirippu' 'Kuzhikkanam' and 'Kuzhikkoor Chamayangal'. By Ext.P15(a) reply, the Village Officer, Kacheri specifically gave the exact meaning of the words 'kudiyirippu' 'Kuzhikkanam' and 'Kuzhikkoor Chamayangal', wherein 'Kuzhikkoor' 'chamayangal' was defined as buildings and trees . The petitioner submits that Exts.P9 and P14 orders have been issued in total non-application of mind and without considering any of the documents produced by the petitioner in a proper manner. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is specifically stated that the provisions under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land & Wetland Act, will apply only in respect of the lands which are filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, i.e. the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is the specific contention raised in the counter affidavit that the records reveal that the property of the petitioner has not been converted even as on date. The petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his contentions. The counter affidavit further states that the document enumerated in Rule 12(13) can be pressed into service only if the property is shown to have been converted prior to 04.07.1967. When the property is still lying without any reclamation or conversion, these documents cannot be taken into account. 4. A detailed reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner mainly contending that Section 27A (3) is not an exception to the general rule, but it is a part of the general scheme introduced in the Act, 2008. It is also contended that it is baseless to say that petitioner's property has not been converted even today. The 3rd respondent is barred from taking such a contention when the competent authority, Local Level Monitoring Committee, has already adjudicated the said issue and passed Ext. P2 order deleting the property of the petitioner from the data bank. It is a fact that the property has been deleted from the data bank and the lie and nature of the property has been clearly stated in Ext.P1 report of the KSRSEC and therefore, the stand now taken by the respondents in Exts.P9 and P14 orders is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. It is a fact that the property has been deleted from the data bank and the lie and nature of the property has been clearly stated in Ext.P1 report of the KSRSEC and therefore, the stand now taken by the respondents in Exts.P9 and P14 orders is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. None of the documents produced by the petitioner has been properly considered while issuing the impugned orders. The petitioner has produced Exts.P16 and P17 sale certificates issued by the Land Tribunal, Vadakara wherein it is specifically stated that the nature of the land is prescribed as plantation. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that the fact that there was a building in the said land prior to 1967 and the building tax was paid in respect of the said property by the Predecessor in interest of the property is also not denied by the 3rd respondent, in the counter affidavit. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. Section 27A deals with change of nature of un-notified land and the proviso to Section 27A(3) mandates that no fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July 1967, i.e. the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilation Order, 1967. The petitioner contends that the property in question is lying as a plantation and the property even have a building prior to 1967 and therefore, he is entitled for consideration of his application for change of nature of un-notified land as per the proviso to Section 27A(3). Ext.P3 application in this regard has been filed under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules in Form No. 9. Ext.P1 is the KSRSEC report in respect of the property, which specifically states that in 1967 data, the plots were observed under settlement and the survey plot was observed predominantly under plantation/mixed vegetation and building/structures in north-east side in 2007. Ext.P1 is the KSRSEC report in respect of the property, which specifically states that in 1967 data, the plots were observed under settlement and the survey plot was observed predominantly under plantation/mixed vegetation and building/structures in north-east side in 2007. The Local Level Monitoring Committee, the 5th respondent, while issuing Ext.P2 order, whereby the property in question was ordered to be removed from the data bank, specifically found that as per the KSRSEC report, the property in question was residential even as on 1967 and from 2007 onwards, there are buildings and plantations in the said property and on the basis of the same, the property was removed from the data bank. Along with Ext.P3 document, the petitioner has produced 9 documents including various sale deeds, which even relate back to 1945, to substantiate his contentions. Ext.P4, photocopy of the registered deed No. 1362/1945, which was also submitted along with Ext.P3 application, clearly shows that the nature of the property is plantation/garden land even in 1941 and it contained buildings and had 'kudiyirippu' rights over such property. Ext.P4(a) is the property tax assessment register for the year 1954 which also shows that the property tax was levied for such building and the building was situated in Survey. Nos.19/930 and 930 in Sl. No. 1107A and 1108 A of ward No. 5 of Kozhikode Corporation. The petitioner relying on document No. 257/1941 submits that the property was having plantations and building and property had 'kaanam kudiyirippu' rights in 1941 and it can only be on a building. In Ext.P5 report submitted by the Village Officer before the 3rd respondent, before whom Ext.P3 application was pending consideration, wherein it is specifically stated that the property is seen converted prior to 1967 and to substantiate the same, document Nos.1362/1945, 498/1946, 183/1947 and 309/1952 sale deeds and proof of payment of building tax was also produced. It is also specifically reported that in the said sale deed, there is reference to 'Kuzhikoor' 'Chamayangal' in the said property. It is also reported by the Village Officer that in the KSRSEC report, the property was a residential property even during 1967. It is also specifically reported that in the said sale deed, there is reference to 'Kuzhikoor' 'Chamayangal' in the said property. It is also reported by the Village Officer that in the KSRSEC report, the property was a residential property even during 1967. In the further report sought for from the Village Offier, there is a reference that in document No. 183/47, the property belongs to one Smt.Paru, there was a thatched house in the said property and further that the building tax was paid to the Corporation in respect of the building in the said property. In Ext.P6 report, the details of all the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions was furnished. In respect of document No. 257/1941, there is a reference that there are 'Kuzhikoor''Chamayangal' in the said property. In respect of document No. 498/46, it is stated that in the schedule to the property, there is reference about a house and that the said property was transferred as per document No. 59/68, in which also there is a reference in the schedule of the property regarding a house. It is further reported that one Smt. Paru died in 1958, while residing in the said property. It is also reported that in the KSRSEC report also, the property is shown as residential plot, as early as in 1967. Ext.P7 is the statement given by one Odat Babu, who is the predecessor of the property in question and he stated that the property has been converted prior to 1967. Ext.P8 file note in respect of Ext.P3 application would specifically show that the 3rd respondent was aware of the fact that on verification of the document No. 1362/45, the Municipal tax and the Government tax is already been paid and that in the KSRSEC report, even as on 1967, the plot was also observed under settlement. There is also a reference that a structure of an old damaged building is also seen on one end of the land and further that there is also reference of remittance of both land tax and property tax. But it is stated in the said file note that at the time of site visit by the officials, the land is water logged and that is one of the reasons for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. But it is stated in the said file note that at the time of site visit by the officials, the land is water logged and that is one of the reasons for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P8(a) report No. C2/209/19 dated 06.12.2019 obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act also show that, it is reported to the 3rd respondent that there was residential building prior to 1967 in the petitioner's property. The contention of the petitioner is that the finding in Ext.P9 that he could not prove by cogent documents that there was a building in existence in the property prior to 1967 and also as to whether the land has been converted, is without any basis. There is also a further finding in Ext.P9 order that 'Kuzhikoor' 'Chamayangal' recorded in the sale deeds can only be treated as a style of writing of sale deeds and further that there is water logging in the property therefore, it cannot be proved that the property has been converted prior to 1967. After Ext.P10 appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, a further report was called for by the 2nd respondent from the Village Officer concerned and a perusal of Ext.P12 report also shows that there was a building in existence before 1967 and the water logging is only due to the construction of a new road in front of the property of the petitioner, that too during the rainy season. 6. The stand in the counter affidavit is that the property of the petitioner is not even converted even as on today and therefore, the document produced by the petitioner will not be of any avail in support of the contention of the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and baseless, especially in view of Ext.P1 report of the KSRSEC, which specifically states that even as on 1967, the plot was observed under settlement and that the plot is predominantly under plantation/mixed vegetation and building/structures in the north-east side was seen even as early as in 2007. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the 5th respondent wherein considering the KSRSEC report and on physical verification and on finding that the land has been converted and the property was residential property even prior to 1967, the property was removed from the draft data bank. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the 5th respondent wherein considering the KSRSEC report and on physical verification and on finding that the land has been converted and the property was residential property even prior to 1967, the property was removed from the draft data bank. The stand in the counter affidavit that the property of the petitioner is not converted as on today is absolutely baseless and cannot be accepted at all. So the stand of the respondents that the property has not been converted even today is only to be rejected. The further reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner is that in the inspection, the property was found to be water logged. A perusal of Ext.P12 report will clearly shows that water logging was due to the construction of the new road and the water logging was during rainy season. Further, it is settled law that just because property is lying at water logged, it should not be a reason to include the same in the data bank. [See the judgment in Jessy Abraham vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021 (6) KHC 316 ]. I am of the opinion that the dictum laid down in that case could be safely applied in the facts of this case and the said reason stated for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is only to be rejected. 7. Now the question to be considered is whether the property is converted prior to 1967, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit as provided in the proviso to Rule 27A(3). After going through the documents produced along with this writ petition, which is produced as Exts.P4 and P4(a) and also the report of the Village Officer concerned, which is produced as Exts.P5 and P6 and the statement given by the predecessor in interest as Ext.P7 and also on perusal of Ext.P8 file note wherein it is specifically noted that the property is seen converted before 1967, and also the presence of building, the findings in Exts.P9 and P14 appellate order are without taking into consideration any of the documents referred to above. The finding in Ext.P9 order regarding 'Kuzhikoor' 'Chamayangal' shown to in the documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate that the property has been converted prior to 1967 that it is only a style of writing of the sale deed is nothing but a casual way of consideration of Ext.P3 application and proves total no-application of mind. None of the documents produced along with the writ petition which was also produced before the 3rd respondent while considering Ext.P3 application was not even adverted to while issuing Ext.P9 order. The petitioner has produced a document obtained as per the RTI Act as Ext.P15(a) which clearly shows that the Village Officer has reported that 'Kuzhikoor'' Chamayangal' means buildings and trees in the property and as per the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 'Kudiyirippu' means a building in the property and the other buildings or property attached to the same and 'Kuzhikkanam' is regarding transfer of a plantation, land or other lands. The words, 'Kudiyirippu', 'Kuzhikkanam' and 'Kuzhikoor' 'Chamayangal' in the document produced by the petitioner make it explicitly clear that there was a building in the said property and the property is essentially plantation and further that there are buildings and trees in the property which all would show that the property was converted prior to 1967, whereby entitling the petitioner to claim under the proviso to Rule 27A(3) of the Act, 2008. 8. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reasoning in Exts.P9 and P14 orders to reject the claim of the petitioner is absolutely without any basis and has been done in a casual manner, without adverting to any of the documents produced by the petitioner. Therefore, Exts.P9 and P14 are accordingly, set aside and it is declared that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P3 application is to be treated as converted prior to 1967 and is eligible for necessary correction in the revenue records. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. A perusal of Exts.P9 and P14 orders would reveal that such applications submitted by the citizens have been decided and considered without any application of mind and without considering any of the contentions raised by them in a proper manner. 9. A perusal of Exts.P9 and P14 orders would reveal that such applications submitted by the citizens have been decided and considered without any application of mind and without considering any of the contentions raised by them in a proper manner. The Act and the Rules entrust the consideration of applications like Ext.P3 and the appeals to senior revenue officers and it is seen in the present case that Exts.P9 and P14 have been considered by officers of the Indian Administrative Service. Entrustment of such duties to such higher officials itself will show the intention of the legislature that since this is a proceedings affecting the right of user of landed property of the citizen, it should be properly considered with the seriousness it deserve. The Act, 2008 imposes a restriction upon the use of the property and going by the mandates of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, it can only be in accordance with law. Though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right and a human right. (See the judgments of Apex Court in Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan vs. State of Utter Pradesh, 1982 (1) SCC 39 and Indian Handicraft Emporium vs. Government of India, 2003 7 SCC 589 ). Such casual way of consideration as is done in the present case is arbitrary and unjust. The finding in Ext.P9 that 'Kuzhikoor'' Chamayangal' can only be termed as a style of writing the sale deed is nothing but a callous approach, which is only to be condemned. The said authorities did not care to make any efforts to understand the real meaning of the terms used in sale deeds and rejected the claim of the petitioner on trivial grounds. It is seen that the Village Officer who issued Ext.P15(a) communication under the RTI Act has clearly understood the meaning of the words with reference to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. When a citizen approaches the higher officials like the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Collector, they are duty bound to consider his application with due application of mind, strictly in accordance with law, which has not been done in the present case. When a citizen approaches the higher officials like the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Collector, they are duty bound to consider his application with due application of mind, strictly in accordance with law, which has not been done in the present case. This Court in Vasu Kallayi vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KHC 527 , while considering a case coming under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 directed the Government to take appropriate steps to see that sufficient refreshment/training course are convened to enlighten the officers about the legal position in consultation with the Advocate General, so that the mistakes are not committed in future by the Revenue Divisional Officer while invoking the powers of the Act, 2008 and directed that the copy of the judgment to be forwarded to the 1st respondent Government and to the learned Advocate General for necessary action, so that the accumulation of the cases before the court under the Act, 2008 can be considerably reduced. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is extracted below: 10. In the light of the above judgment, it is very clear that Exts.P10 and Ext.P12 are unsustainable. Sec.27A(11) of the Act, 2008 can be invoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer only in a situation where the conditions specified in the order issued under sub-sec. (2) are not complied by the applicant either fully or partially. Here, Ext.P5 is the original order passed by the 2nd respondent. Nobody has got any case that the conditions in Ext.P5 are not complied. Similarly, there is no case to the 2nd espondent that the impediments of Secs.2 and 4 of Sec.27A of the Act, 2008 are invoked in this matter. Ext.P12 order is passed because of the ignorance of the law. A bare reading of Sec.27A(11) of the Act, 2008 itself will show that an order passed under Sec.27A can be cancelled only in certain conditions mentioned in Sec.27A(11). Admittedly, there is no such violation of the conditions. If that is the case, Ext.P12 order is unsustainable in law. The 2nd respondent being a statutory authority should know the law and the dictum laid down by this Court. It is a settled legal dictum that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Admittedly, there is no such violation of the conditions. If that is the case, Ext.P12 order is unsustainable in law. The 2nd respondent being a statutory authority should know the law and the dictum laid down by this Court. It is a settled legal dictum that ignorance of law is not an excuse. The first respondent should take appropriate steps to see that sufficient refreshment/training courses are convened to enlighten the officers about the legal position in consultation with the Advocate General, so that the mistakes are not committed in future by the Revenue Divisional Officer while invoking the powers of Act, 2008. A copy of this judgment should be forwarded to the 1st respondent and to the learned Advocate General for taking necessary follow up action so that the accumulation of cases before this Court under the Act, 2008 can be considerably reduced. Anyway, this writ petition is only to be allowed. 11. Despite the directions issued in this regard by this Court, the high placed revenue authorities are considering the applications submitted under the Act, 2008 in a very casual manner putting the citizens to great difficulty. Therefore, the Registry shall communicate the copy of the judgment to the 1st respondent herein to take appropriate action in this regard as directed in Vasu Kallayi case (Supra). The 1st respondent shall issue necessary directions to the Officers under him who are duly authorised to consider the claims under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, to be more prompt and vigilant in dealing with such issues and pass reasoned orders in accordance with law. 12. Above writ petition is allowed as above.