RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

1. Connected Writ Appeals are filed challenging common judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the District Collector to enforce Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter called "the Act") against the appellant in respect of 12.70 ares of land stated to be converted by him from paddy land to garden land in violation of provisions of the Act. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas appearing for the appellant, Senior counsel Sri.P.Ravindran appearing for the first respondent, counsel appearing for the Panchayat and Government Pleader for the remaining respondents.

2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. Appellant admittedly is running a saw mill and veneer/plywood factory in 94 cents of land. Since more land is required for the purpose of the factory, appellant filed an application under Section 6 of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter called "the Order") before the District Collector for permission to utilise a total of 12.70 ares of land adjoining his factory land and owned by him covered by two survey Nos.250/7-2 (16.35 ares) and 255/1-2 (6.37 ares) in Arackappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District. The District Collector examined eligibility first by looking into whether the land is covered by the provisions of the Act and for this purpose, he called for separate reports from the Agriculture Officer, Vengola and also the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer. After considering the reports from these authorities, the Collector issued Ext.P12 (produced in W.P.(C) No.32582/2011) wherein he held that the land is converted long back and is presently cultivated with other crops and is neither paddy land nor wet land falling under Sections 2(xii) and 2(xviii) of the Act. Consequently appellant's application was allowed entitling him to obtain permissions from the local authority for extension of the plywood factory. Even though the Panchayat passed adverse orders against the appellant, the same was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal passed orders declaring appellant's entitlement for extension of the factory in the adjoining 12.7 ares of land in respect of which Collector granted approval vide Ext.P12 referred above. The first respondent challenged Ext.P12 order of the Collector and also the order issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions permitting the appellant to extend the factory in the 12.7 ares of land adjoining his factory. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by holding that the land is paddy land covered by the provisions of the Act and consequently direction was issued to the District Collector to enforce Section 13 of the Act for restoration of the land to paddy land by the appellant. It is against this common judgment appellant has filed the Writ Appeals.

3. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable because nowhere in the judgment the learned Single Judge has considered the true nature and character of the land or held that the land is or was paddy land which was converted after the commencement of the provisions of the Act obliging the Collector to order restoration under Section 13 of the Act. Counsel has made specific reference to the facts found by the Revenue authorities based on which Collector has issued Ext.P12 order. Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that provisions of the Act do not authorise the Collector to issue Ext.P12 order. As against this contention, counsel for the appellant referred to Division Bench judgment of this court in PRAVEEN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER reported in 2010(2) KLT 617 wherein this court has clearly held that when an application is filed under the Land Utilisation Order, which in this case is an application made under clause 6 of the Or