1. The three petitioners herein are Companies, said to be engaged in infrastructure development, who had purchased respectively 11.65 acres, 11.86 acres and 3.86 acres of land in the year 2007. The substantive dispute raised is with respect to the nature of the said land purchased, which, as per the revenue records, are described as "paddy land" (nilam). The petitioners claim the land to be outside the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Paddy Land Act"). The petitioners were earlier before this Court in three separate writ petitions, which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for reclamation of the land for non-agricultural purposes. The provisions of the Paddy Land Act, which were brought into force on 12.08.2008, were noticed and in the background of the petitioners having applied under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity "KLU Order") also directed that the authority shall consider first whether the land is a paddy land or wet land as defined under the Paddy Land Act and on finding so, to consider the application under that Act and otherwise, under the KLU Order.

2. In compliance of Exhibit P6 series of judgments, Exhibit P7 series of orders were passed, wherein it was found that the land is covered under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and permission, for development activities was granted, according sanction for conversion of land on condition of adequate drainage facilities being provided. The said order was challenged in appeal before the 2nd respondent, by respondents 5 and 6 herein, by way of a single appeal and the same was allowed, setting aside Exhibit P7 series of orders by Exhibit P10. The further revision filed by the petitioners herein jointly, was rejected, confirming the appellate order, by Exhibit P21. After Exhibit P7 order was passed, the appeal initiated by respondents 5 and 6 and the proceedings pursuant thereto were often subject matter of writ petitions before this Court. However, none of those proceedings are relevant; suffice it to say that the setting aside of Exhibit P7 by the 2nd respondent as per Exhibit P10 was confirmed by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P21. These are the orders challenged by the petitioners herein.

3. The petitioners contend that even at the time of purchase, the property was a dry land, though the documents describe it as "nilam". It is also contended that it was partly converted land. The intention of the petitioners behind the acquisition of the property was for the development of the land by construction of multi-storied buildings thereon. The petitioner had, in pursuance of the intention, obtained a building permit from the local authority and No Objection Certificates from various authorities, which documents are produced as Exhibits P1 to P5. Evidently the first of such documents, being the building permit, was obtained on 5.8.2008; a week after which the Paddy Land Act came into force within the State. It was in this context that while disposing of the earlier writ petitions this Court had directed the authority to first consider whether the land would be covered under the Paddy Land Act and if not, to pass orders under the KLU Order.

4. Before looking at the facts of the case, both sides have referred to a wealth of decisions of this Court, which would enable the law to be placed in the proper perspective.

5. Almost at the same time when Exhibit P6 series of judgments were passed, a similar issue was considered in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector [2009 (1) KLT 123], wherein it was held that the competent authority considering an application after the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act has to first verify whether it is a land coming under that Act and resort to consider an application under that Act only on such finding being entered. Otherwise, it was held that the applic