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.