JUDGMENT : (A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.) As all these three writ appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. WA No. 1691 of 2023 arises from the judgment dated 09.08.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023. WA No.1441 of 2025 arises from the order dated 19.11.2024 of another learned Single Judge in RP No.356 of 2024 whereby he dismissed the review petition preferred against the judgment dated 31.01.2024 in WP(C) No.20159 of 2023, from which WA No.633 of 2025 arises. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for a disposal of these writ appeals are as follows: The writ petitioner in the writ petitions aforementioned is stated to be in ownership and possession of 24.5 Acres of land abutting the Container Road at Kalamassery. The said parcel of land was purchased by him in several lots during the period from 2003 to 2011 under cover of 83 documents. The petitioner had purchased the lands with a view to construct and operate a Container Freight Station on the said land. Towards that end, there was also some construction that was completed in the year 2007. 4. It would appear that, out of the aforesaid extent of 24.5 Acres of land, an extent of 15 Acres and 34.45 Cents was covered by specific orders issued by the Government and the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilization Order permitting a use of the land for purposes other than paddy cultivation. However, it is an admitted fact that there is no such permission covering an extent of 9 Acres from out of the 24.5 Acres of land held by the writ petitioner. 5. By Ext.P16 order dated 14.06.2018, the writ petitioner was granted an exemption under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 , whereby he was permitted to retain the excess lands, over and above the ceiling limit, in his possession on the specific condition that he used the exempted land only for commercial/industrial purposes. By virtue of the exemption granted under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the State Government, therefore, the writ petitioner was obliged to use the land for commercial/industrial purposes as a condition for retaining the exemption from the ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 6. By virtue of the exemption granted under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the State Government, therefore, the writ petitioner was obliged to use the land for commercial/industrial purposes as a condition for retaining the exemption from the ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 6. It is against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that, in these appeals, we are called upon to consider the legality of the actions of the authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the’2008 Act’) in issuing stop memos and prohibitory orders against the writ petitioner, based solely on a complaint received by the said authority, that the writ petitioner was resorting to filling up of the lands in his ownership and possession contrary to the provisions of the 2008 Act. The writ petitions were preferred by the petitioner at a point in time when he was served with the stop memos and the prohibitory orders. The first writ petition, WP(C) No.16781 of 2023 was considered by the learned Single Judge, who found as follows at paragraphs 29 and 30 of his judgment, while allowing the writ petition. “29. 29. In the case of the petitioner, the 24.5 Acres land was possessed by the petitioner since 2002-2003 and soon thereafter. The land is not cultivated with paddy for long. There are official reports that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation due to inadequate irrigation and drainage facilities and due to flow of industrial waste from nearby industrial units. The land is being used for services and facilities like Cargo Moving facility, Supply Chain Management, Container Freight Station, Fuel Station, Weigh Bridge, Dormitories for Container Lorry Drivers and Staff, Bank, Toilets, Godowns, Parking spaces, Truck Maintenance Workshop, Customs bonded CFS area, etc. 30. When the present nature of land usage is as stated above and since the work being carried out is only for facilitating parking of lorries, as long as the petitioner is going to use the land only for the purposes for which the land was used as on 30.12.2017, no permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is required. Ext.P26 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P26 is therefore set aside.” 7. Ext.P26 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P26 is therefore set aside.” 7. On the other hand, WP(C) No.20159 of 2023, that was preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 13.06.2023 of the Revenue Divisional Officer as also the notice dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Tahsildar prohibiting any activity in 1.84 Acres of land owned by the petitioner, was disposed by another learned Single Judge, who took note of the judgment dated 09.08.2023 in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023 and found that the revenue authorities were entitled to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 27A of the 2008 Act against filling activities that were being carried out on lands not covered by specific permission orders under the KLUO. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed with a direction to the revenue authorities to undertake the exercise of determining whether the land that was being proceeded against was indeed one which they could proceed against in terms of Section 27A of the 2008 Act. Although a review petition was preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the same came to be dismissed by the order dated 09.11.2024, which is impugned in WA No.1441 of 2025. 8. As has already been noted in earlier paragraphs of this judgment, the essential question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether or not the revenue authorities can initiate any proceedings under the 2008 Act, against land that is owned and possessed by the writ petitioner and covered by an exemption order issued under S.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Towards answering that question, we have heard Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State in WA No.1691 of 2023 and Sri.Ranjit Thamban, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA Nos.1441 of 2025 and 633 of 2025. We have also heard Sri.Ranjith Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent in WA Nos.1441 of 2025 and 633 of 2025 and the 2 nd respondent in WA No.1691 of 2023. 9. We have also heard Sri.Ranjith Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent in WA Nos.1441 of 2025 and 633 of 2025 and the 2 nd respondent in WA No.1691 of 2023. 9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the exemption that is granted to the writ petitioner under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, is with a specific condition that the exemption will enure to him only so long as he utilises the land for the specific purposes, for which the exemption is granted. The exemption granted in respect of 24.5 Acres of land, mandates that the land in question must be used for commercial/industrial purposes and not for any other purpose. This would mean that if the writ petitioner decides to use the land for any other purpose, he would stand to lose the benefit of the exemption granted by the Government from the ceiling provisions under the Land Reforms Act. Under such circumstances, we fail to see how the authorities under the 2008 Act can insist on the writ petitioner maintaining his land in the same state without altering its nature in any manner. We would think that statutory provisions under different State enactments have to be read harmoniously so that the provisions of one statute are not invoked to defeat the rights/privileges obtained by a citizen under the other. If the provisions of 2008 Act are strictly implemented against the writ petitioner in the instant case, he will lose the benefit of the exemption granted to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. We are quite clear in our minds that the attempt of this Court in such situations must be to read the provisions of both the statutes harmoniously, so that they can operate together in relation to a particular land. We are quite clear in our minds that the attempt of this Court in such situations must be to read the provisions of both the statutes harmoniously, so that they can operate together in relation to a particular land. Since the lands in question are already covered by an order of exemption under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the discretion of the State Government under Section 10 of the 2008 Act, which enables the Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act if such conversion or reclamation of the land is essential for any public purpose, can also be deemed to have been exercised in favour of the same land so that there is no interference with the benefits granted to the writ petitioner under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, on account of an implementation of the provisions of the 2008 Act. 10. We might hasten to add that we are not to be understood as laying down a general proposition that in all cases where lands have been exempted from the ceiling provisions under the KLR Act, the provisions of the 2008 Act will not apply. It is only because in the instant case, the writ petitioner is obliged, as a condition for retaining the benefit of the exemption under the KLR Act, to carry out activities on his land that might militate against the objects of the 2008 Act, that we have chosen to harmoniously interpret the provisions of the two enactments as above. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that, we find that in the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the object behind the grant of exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, does not align with the object of the provisions of the 2008 Act, and a harmonious reading of both the statutes would necessitate our deeming the grant of an exemption in terms of Section 10 of the 2008 Act. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of the 2008 Act cannot be attracted in relation to those lands belonging to the writ petitioner, which are covered by the exemption order under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. WA No.1691 of 2023 preferred by the State is, therefore, dismissed by confirming the findings of the learned Single Judge, albeit for the reasons stated in this judgment. WA Nos. WA No.1691 of 2023 preferred by the State is, therefore, dismissed by confirming the findings of the learned Single Judge, albeit for the reasons stated in this judgment. WA Nos. 1441 and 633 of 2025 are allowed by setting aside the judgment and the orders impugned therein and declaring that the extent of 24.5 Acres of land belonging to the appellant therein, and covered by these proceedings, shall be deemed to be exempt from the provisions of the 2008 Act, so long a the said lands are covered by the exemption granted under Section 81 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.