Shaffique, J.

1. The writ petitioners are the appellants who challenge the judgment dated 21/02/2014 in W.P.C.No.12793/2013.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P10 and P21 and for a declaration that petitioners' property will not come under the purview of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land, Act 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioners together acquired certain item of land in Kizhakkambalam village. They obtained building permit and other permissions from various authorities for constructing a multi storied complex having an area of 423919.16 sq.meters. Since the land was described as 'nilam' in the revenue records, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for conversion of the land invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLU order'). When no orders were passed by the RDO, 2nd petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.22821/2008 seeking for appropriate directions for disposal of their application. This Court directed the RDO to pass orders on the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act and if it is not applicable, under the KLU Order. It was observed that the enquiry would require verification as to whether the lands are paddy land or wet land. Similar order was passed in another writ petition filed by the 3rd petitioner as W.P.C.No.22925/2008.

4. The RDO, after conducting an enquiry, passed two separate orders dated 02/02/2009 [Ext.P7(a) and P7(b)] observing that the lands involved do not come under the provisions of the Act as it is not a paddy land and no paddy cultivation is possible. Accordingly, the matter was considered under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order and sanction was accorded for conversion of the land having an extent of 1186.964 cents and 380.332 cents in various survey numbers of Kizhakkambalam village. Certain groups claiming to be a Karshaka Sangham in the locality challenged the aforesaid order before the Land Revenue Commissioner which resulted in Ext.P8 order dated 19/10/2009 by which the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the RDO was set aside. It is inter alia found that the Agricultural Officer, after site inspection, has reported that the land was suitable for paddy cultivation. Further, it was reported that a Padasekhara Samithi had existed in the area till 2006 June and production incentive was given to the farmers till 2003.

5. Ext.P8 order came to be challenged by the 2nd petitioner by filing W.P.C No.33164/2009 and by judgment dated 01/03/2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Land Revenue Commissioner after notice to the aggrieved parties. The matter was again heard and by order dated 19/07/2010 the Land Revenue Commissioner allowed the appeal finding that the land comes under the definition of 'paddy land' as defined under the Act. Petitioners preferred a revision which ultimately resulted in Ext.P17 order dated 29/01/2011. Same came to be challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.C.No.6121/2011 by which this Court set aside Ext.P17 and directed the revision to be considered afresh after hearing the affected parties. This direction resulted in the order dated 17/04/2013 produced as Ext.P21 wherein the Government concurred with the view expressed by the Land Revenue Commissioner that the land is paddy land and is included in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) under the provisions of the Act.

6. Counter affidavit and reply affidavit has been filed in these matters and after a detailed consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the orders passed and directed the petitioners to approach the LLMC with an application to reconsider the inclusion of the property in the draft data bank pre