JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in these writ petitions are for consideration of the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the 2008 Act') without insisting on payment of fees. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners are owners in possession of the property, the extent of property in both these cases is below 25 cents. It is submitted that the property was purchased from the prior owner and the extent of the property was identical. It is, therefore, contended that since the extent of the property as on 30.12.2017 was below 25 cents, the petitioners are entitled to consideration of their Form 6 applications, without payment of any fee as provided in Section 27A of the 2008 Act and Rule 12(9) and the Schedule to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. It is submitted that the respondents are refusing to consider the application on the ground that the properties were purchased on a later date and that therefore, the fees have to be paid. 3. A statement has been placed on record by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.4450/2023 contending that the exemption from payment of fee for the conversion of the property is provided only to specific extents of property which are below 25 cents each. It is contended that since the petitioners had purchased the properties after 2017, they are not entitled to the exemption. It is contended that even if properties having a lesser extent is purchased after 2017, the benefit of conversion without fee will be lost. 4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that Section 27A of the 2008 Act provides for application seeking permission for use of unnotified land for other purposes. It is specified that land below an extent of 25 cents can be converted without payment of fees. The provision with regard to payment of fees is provided in Rule 12(9), which reads as follows :- “OTHER LANGUAGE” The provision with regard to fee in the Schedule is as follows :- “OTHER LANGUAGE” Ext.R3(a) Government Order produced by the Government Pleader also specifically states as follows :- “OTHER LANGUAGE” Reliance is sought to be placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.R3(b) and R3(c) documents. It is pertinent to note that Ext.R3(c) circular dated 23.7.2021 has been set aside by this Court in its entirety in the decision reported in Baby v. District Collector [ 2021 (6) KLT 316 ]. With regard to the clarification which is relied on by the learned Government Pleader, I notice that the clarifications are not in the form of either a circular or a Government Order and they are only communications issued by individual officers apparently to queries raised with regard to the applicability of the exemption. Since the said communications are not orders issued by the Government, I am clearly of the opinion that they cannot have any applicability or operation over and above the statutory provisions or the executive Government Orders validly issued on the subject. 5. A reading of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Schedule as well as Ext.R3(a) Government Order would make it amply clear that the exemption would be lost only in case there is a transaction after 30.12.2017 by which, a property having a larger extent is fragmented to make the individual parcels of land of an extent of less than 25 cents. The contention that any property purchased after December, 2017 would loss the exemption even when the said property was less then 25 cents in extent even prior to such transaction cannot be accepted in view of the specific language of the Act, the Rule and the Schedule. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the statement are completely untenable. The communications issued, which do not have the force of law, cannot stand in the way of consideration of applications in accordance with law. These writ petitions are, accordingly, ordered directing the RDO to pass appropriate orders on the Form 6 applications submitted by the petitioners without insisting on the payment of fee. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.