All the above writ petitions raise the issue as to how; the land indicated as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), but however converted long before the commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity, Act of 2008), has to be dealt with. The issue specifically arises since a Division Bench decision of this Court had been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 SC]. It is thought fit that W.P. (C) No.16683 of 2015 be considered as the leading case, since despite an order directing consideration under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity 'the KLUO'), the Sub Collector is said to have rejected the claim.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16683 of 2015 was before the District Collector seeking permission to put to use 40 cents of land for a purpose other than paddy cultivation. The same was rejected by Ext.P2 dated 15.07.2013. The petitioner relied on Ext.P3 report of the Agricultural Officer with respect to the very same land, wherein, it was categorically stated that the said land was filled up 12 years earlier i.e., prior to the Act of 2008. Hence, the petitioner made an application, at Ext.P4, before the Tahsildar for correction of BTR based on a Division Bench decision of this Court and also approached this Court by a writ petition, the judgment of which is produced at Ext.P5.

3. This Court found that the District Collector/R.D.O has power under the KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes, especially since, the land was reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Act of 2008 and there being no evidence as to there being any cultivation in the said land, of any food crops, either three years prior to the commencement of KLUO or after such commencement. It was directed that the issue would be considered in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499]. In Ext.P5 it was also noticed that the decision of a Division Bench reported in Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] found that permission under clause (6) can be granted for construction of buildings even for industrial purposes. Relying on another learned single Judge's decision of this Court reported in Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2014 (1) KLT 706], the application filed by the petitioner was directed to be considered under clause (6) of the KLUO. However the Sub Collector by Ext.P6 declined the same.

4. The rejection was on the ground that there is no power conferred on the Collector or the R.D.O to regularise any conversion made. The learned Government Pleader would in addition, seek to sustain the order on the basis of paragraph 23 of Jalaja Dileep (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the party respondents in all the appeals to approach the competent authorities constituted under the KLUO or the Act of 2008. There was also a direction to consider the application under the KLUO in accordance with notification G.O. (Rt) No. 157/2002/Ad dated 05.02.2002 under the KLUO. Hence consideration under KLUO is regulated by the said notification is the contention.

5. The notification was referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and extracted in paragraph 11 of the judgment. According to the learned Special Government Pleader as per the notification, conversions are permitted only for small areas upto 5 cents, that too for construction of residential houses for individuals. Large scale conversion of land by artificial partition into small plots less than 5 cents was to be detected and disallowed. The notification also specifically speaks of the need for discouraging large scale conversions for commercial purposes. Further the notification specifically interdicts regularisation on the ground of the conversion having already been effected on the ground o