JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. Since a common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022, the petitioner challenges Ext.P18 order, whereas in W.P.(C)No.425 of 2023 the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P28 and seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 3 to keep in abeyance all proceedings initiated against the petitioner's properties under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , till a final decision is taken and concluded on the application given by the petitioner to establish a Private Industrial Park, which is subject matter of W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022. 3. Petitioner, a company with an intention to establish a "Private Industrial Park", purchased 52 acres of land by 7 registered documents executed between 31.10.1994 and 31.05.1996, situated in Palakkad District. As per Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022, permission was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for setting up an industrial unit. The Private Industrial Park was sought to be established on the basis of Ext.P3 Scheme of the Government for establishment of Private Industrial Parks as notified by the Government in Ext.P4 Government Order. One of the conditions of eligibility to apply for permission to set up a Private Industrial Park was that the promoter should have a minimum of 50 acres of land, which was later reduced to 25 acres by subsequent orders. It is also specified in Ext.P3 that once an Industrial Park is sanctioned, it will confer a right on the Developer for exemption from the provisions of Section 81 (3)(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963(for short 'the KLR Act, 1963'). It is contended that the initial investment expected was about Rs.100 crores, over and above the cost of land in the possession of the petitioner and the project if launched could offer employment to hundreds of people. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 formal application for the issuance of a Private Industrial Development Permit. A detailed inspection was conducted by a high power committee and Ext.P7 report was submitted, wherein it was recommended that the subject property having an extent of 52.87 acres is suitable for setting up a Private Industrial Estate. Thereafter no further action was taken in this regard. A detailed inspection was conducted by a high power committee and Ext.P7 report was submitted, wherein it was recommended that the subject property having an extent of 52.87 acres is suitable for setting up a Private Industrial Estate. Thereafter no further action was taken in this regard. The petitioner would contend that if Section 82 of the KLR Act, 1963 is to apply, by which the maximum area of land that can be held by the petitioner is only 15 acres going by Section 82 (1)(d) of the Act, the same would be inconsistent with the scheme contemplated by the Government since as per Ext.P3, in order to apply for permission to establish a Private Industrial Park, the applicant should have a minimum of 50 acres. It is in the said circumstance that Section 81 (3) will become relevant, which would enable the Government from exempting the land on account of any special use to which such land is put, from the provisions of Chapter III of the KLR Act, 1963. It is taking note of the said provision that the Government in Ext.P3 has assured that once permission to establish an Industrial Park is granted, that will confer a right of exemption under Section 81 (3) from the provisions of Chapter III of the KLR Act, 1963. In the light of the above, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the question as to whether the land held by the petitioner is 'excess land' or not is not relevant for the consideration of petitioner's application for establishing an Industrial Park and the same would be relevant only if the petitioner's application is rejected otherwise. Since nothing positive was turning out, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P(C)No.11939/2021 and this Court by Ext.P9 judgment directed the Government to take a decision on Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of a Private Industrial Estate Developer permit. Though a hearing was conducted, no decision was taken and the Government filed Ext.P11 application seeking extension of time by 3 months for complying with the direction. Though a hearing was conducted, no decision was taken and the Government filed Ext.P11 application seeking extension of time by 3 months for complying with the direction. The only reason stated in Ext.P11 is that a gazette notification is required to exclude a particular land from the purview of Clause 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963 and the Committee constituted as per G.O.(Rt.)No.76/2021/ID dated 20.01.2021 is not competent to take a decision on granting exemption from the above case and therefore, further time is required. Though this Court was not satisfied of the reasons stated seeking enlargement of time, granted time up to 10.11.2021. While so, the name of the petitioner company was changed into the present one as per Ext.P13 certificate of incorporation. Even after extension of time was granted by this Court as per Ext.P12, no decision was taken by the Government. Thereupon the Government filed another application seeking extension of time as evident from Ext.P14, wherein a different stand was taken by the Government that it is not possible to issue permit to any Private Industrial Park with more than 15 acres of land, unless they have obtained exemption under Section 81 (3)of the KLR Act, 1963. Later Government issued Ext.P15 order along with Ext.P16 whereby a new Scheme was formulated as "Private Industrial Estate Scheme 2022". The petitioner submits that Exts.P15 and P16 are not in supersession of Exts.P3 and P4 and can only be prospective. Later the Government issued Ext.P17 order streamlining the procedure for applying for exemption from the ceiling limits under the KLR Act, 1963 and thereafter issued Ext.P18 order in compliance with the direction in Ext.P9 judgment directing the petitioner to apply for exemption as per Ext.P16 Government Order. It is the case of the petitioner that the direction of this Court in Ext.P9 was not in fact complied with. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition is filed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the direction of this Court in Ext.P9 was not in fact complied with. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition is filed. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022, who is the Director of Industries & Commerce, wherein it is admitted that the Government of Kerala has introduced a scheme 'Private Industrial Estate Scheme 2017' as per G.O.(Ms)No.47/2017/ID dated 20/06/2017 so as to promote private entities to develop Private Industrial Estate in the State, which mandates that the entities owning and possessing 50 acres or more and desirous of developing the land with infrastructure and utilities for allotment to Industries, may apply in the prescribed format to KINFRA, which was the nodal agency, for Private Industrial Estate Developer permit. The application submitted by the promoters for Private Industrial Estate(PIE) should be scrutinized by a Committee which has to recommend the suitability of the land for the implementation of the project. It is also admitted that in the Government Order referred to above, the main benefits conferred on the PIE Developer is a developer permit under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011/Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and also an exemption under Section81(3) of KLR Act, 1963 from the ceiling provision of the PIE property. It is also contended that though the Scheme was implemented, it faced several obstacles and the Government did not get much applications as the stipulation was that the land should be above 50 acres and hence the said stipulation was reduced to 25 acres. Even then the response was very poor. It is further submitted that Ext.P3 is only the frame work of a Scheme introduced by Ext.P4, which is not having the force of a statute. The benefits offered under clause 5 of Ext.P3 is the benefits made available to the PIE developer on granting a permit to that effect and for availing such benefits, steps have to be taken by the applicant. Though such condition was incorporated in Clause 2 granting exemption under Section 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963, such incorporation will not in itself confer such right of the applicant and the applicant has to undergo the Provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act for getting such exemption. Though such condition was incorporated in Clause 2 granting exemption under Section 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963, such incorporation will not in itself confer such right of the applicant and the applicant has to undergo the Provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act for getting such exemption. The Government have issued Ext.R2(a) order constituting District Level Committee for scrutiny of applications and formalities of guidelines for processing of applications for exemption under Section 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the issue of excess land would not arise, only if the gazette notification is issued by the Government exempting the specified land from the ceiling as provided under Section 81(3)(b) of KLR Act, 1963, for which necessary steps has to be initiated by the petitioner. Though there is a provision that on granting Developer permit the exemption under Section 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963 will be granted from the ceiling provision of the PIE property, the statutory provisions required under the KLR Act cannot be overrided by guidelines for the setting up of Private Industrial Estate by the issuance of an executive order. It is further submitted that the Industries Department has made modifications to the frame work and introduced a new scheme 'Private Industrial Estate Scheme 2022' wherein the application is to be submitted before the Director of Industries & Commerce and the minimum extent of land required was reduced to 10 acres and it is also provided that the Private Industrial Park is proposed in an extent of land above 15 acres, necessary exemption under KLR Act, 1963 will be granted as per the established procedure and the established procedure is to apply to the Revenue Department. Therefore, the declaration that the PIE Developer permit shall confer on the PIE Developer exemption under Section 81(3) of KLR Act, 1963, was suitably corrected so as to avoid ambiguity and that with the implementation of the new PIE 2022 Scheme, 2017 Scheme is no longer in existence. It is in the said circumstance that Ext.P18 communication was issued directing the petitioner to file application seeking exemption. 5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for the issuance of Private Industrial Estate Developer permit based Ext.P3 Scheme and Ext.P4 Government Order. It is in the said circumstance that Ext.P18 communication was issued directing the petitioner to file application seeking exemption. 5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for the issuance of Private Industrial Estate Developer permit based Ext.P3 Scheme and Ext.P4 Government Order. Going by Ext.P3 Scheme a Private Industrial Estate Developer permit shall confer on the Private Industrial Estate Developer exemption under Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 from the ceiling provision for the PIE property. Going by Section 82 of the KLR Act, 1963 the maximum area of land that can be held by the petitioner is 15 acres. Even going by Ext.P3, to apply for permission to establish a Private Industrial Park the applicant should have a minimum of at least 50 acres. If it is 50 acres, naturally the ceiling limit will come in to play. Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 deals with exemption from the ceiling limit as provided in the said Act which mandates that the Government may if they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest on account of any special use to which any land is put or on account of any land being bonafide required for the purpose of conversion into plantation or for the extension or preservation of an existing plantation or for any commercial, industrial, educational or charitable purpose, by notification in the gazette exempt such land from the provisions of this chapter, subject to such restrictions and conditions as they may deem fit to impose. Therefore, going by Section 81(3), if the Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest grant exemption for land from any ceiling limit, if the land is being bonafide required for any purpose, including industrial purpose. Therefore, going by Section 81(3), if the Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest grant exemption for land from any ceiling limit, if the land is being bonafide required for any purpose, including industrial purpose. Government when came up with Ext.P3 Scheme was well aware that the requirement of land is a minimum of 50 acres and if such an Industrial Estate is established, the land will be used for industrial purposes and it is taking note of the said fact that the minimum requirement for starting a private industrial estate is 50 acres and also taking note of the fact the private industrial estates are establishing industries therein, the Government took a conscious decision to exempt the said PIE property from the provisions of KLR Act, 1963 as per Section 81(3). Such a decision was taken and such a benefit was conferred as per Ext.P3 as the Government was well aware that only on giving such exemption from the ceiling provision that the private industrial estate could be established, as going by the mandate of the Scheme a minimum of at least 50 acres is required in this regard. A perusal of Ext.P4, which is an order implementing the Private Industrial Estate Scheme, specifically mandates the issuance of permit to the developer and if there is any failure on the part of the developer, the conditions of the permit empowers the Government to order KINFRA to take over the management of Private Industrial Estate. Therefore, even if the development permit is issued, the same is with a rider that the developer has to fulfill all the promises and also provide all services committed by them and if any failure on the part of the developer, the Government could take over the estate. The application submitted by the petitioner has to be considered in the said background. In Ext.P9 judgment a specific direction was issued to the Government to finalise the proceedings on Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of a Private Industrial Estate Developer permit. The stand of the Government is that a new Scheme has now been implemented as per Ext.P16 whereby certain modifications were imposed on the earlier Scheme, based on which the petitioner has made the application. The stand of the Government is that a new Scheme has now been implemented as per Ext.P16 whereby certain modifications were imposed on the earlier Scheme, based on which the petitioner has made the application. In the new Scheme the requirement of the extent of land was reduced to 15 acres and that necessary exemption under the KLR Act, 1963 will be granted as per the established procedure. The stand of the Government in the counter affidavit that Ext.P3 is only a Scheme for implementation of the project and have no statutory value, cannot be accepted at all especially for the reason that Ext.P3 is based on Ext.P4 Government Order. Further, Ext.P16 also is based on Ext.P15 Government Order and therefore, the contention of the Government that Ext.P3 has no statutory force, cannot be accepted. 7.The issue involved could be considered in another angle. Going by Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 if the Government is satisfied that certain land is used for industrial purpose, the Government is empowered to grant exemption from the ceiling limit as provided under Chapter III of the KLR Act, 1963. If Ext.P5 application is considered and the Government chose to allow the said application based on Ext.P7 recommendation, in which it was found that the land is suitable for establishment of industrial park, naturally that is a consideration and finding by the Government to the effect that a particular land is used for industrial purpose, in which case naturally the Government is empowered to grant exemption from the ceiling limit going by Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963. It is taking note of these aspects that the Government in Ext.P3 took a stand that on issuance of development permit it is deemed that the Private Industrial Estate property will be exempted from the provisions of the KLR Act, 1963. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances I find considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that Exts.P15 and P16, implementing the new Scheme of 2022 is not in supersession or modification of the earlier orders – Exts.P3 and P4. The further contention of the Government in Ext.P18 that the petitioner has to make necessary application on the basis of Ext.P17 seeking exemption from the ceiling limit for consideration of Ext.P5 application for issuance of the Private industrial Estate Developer permit also cannot be accepted. The further contention of the Government in Ext.P18 that the petitioner has to make necessary application on the basis of Ext.P17 seeking exemption from the ceiling limit for consideration of Ext.P5 application for issuance of the Private industrial Estate Developer permit also cannot be accepted. Ext.P17 is a general order simplifying the procedures for consideration of the application under Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 for a promoter. But that cannot be clubbed with the application submitted by the petitioner, which is for the establishment of a Private Industrial Estate based on Exts.P3 and P4, wherein the Government has taken a conscious decision to confer exemption under Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 from the ceiling provision as soon as the Private Industrial Estate Developer Permit is issued. Therefore, the stand of the Government in Ext.P18 that for consideration of Ext.P5 application the petitioner has to approach the concerned authority seeking exemption from ceiling limit on the basis of Ext.P17 Government Order cannot be accepted. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner the question of exemption from ceiling limit will come into force only after a decision is taken on Ext.P5 application for the issuance of a the Private Industrial Estate Developer Permit. It is also to be noted that the Committee as per Ext.P7 has, after considering all the relevant aspects, recommended that the land proposed for starting the Private Industrial Estate is suitable for setting up of a Private Industrial Estate. Therefore, the direction in Ext.P18 that only after the petitioner makes an application seeking exemption from the ceiling limit as provided in the KLR Act, 1963, Ext.P5 application will be considered cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the above Ext.P18 is set aside. There will be a consequential direction to the Government to consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for Private Industrial Estate Developer permit, in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Exts.P3 and P4 without insisting for the petitioner to seek exemption under Section 81(3) of the KLR Act, 1963 from the ceiling provision in respect of the Private Industrial Estate property offered by the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 10. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 10. The relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.425 of 2023 is not to take any further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P28 notices till a decision is taken on the application submitted by the petitioner to establish a Private Industrial Park. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 application for the issuance of a Private Industrial Estate Developer Permit is pending consideration, I find considerable force in the request made by the petitioner that no further action shall be taken pursuant to Exts.P4 and P28 notices till a decision is taken on the application submitted by the petitioner for establishment of a Private Industrial Park. Therefore, W.P.(C)No.425 of 2023 is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all proceedings initiated against the petitioner's property under Section 87 of the KLR Act, 1963, till a final decision is taken on the application submitted by the petitioner for establishment of a Private Industrial Park. With the above said directions, the above writ petitions are disposed of.