1. The petitioners by the above three writ petitions challenge Circular No. 46848/P1/2016/ Revenue dated 22.12.2016. The essential challenge is against the restriction of conversion of user of lands, which are described as “paddy lands” in the Revenue records, but not included in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for brevity “Paddy land Act”]. The restriction is insofar as permitting conversion, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for brevity “KLU Order”) only for construction of a residential house for the owner of the land, that too confined to 10 cents in Panchayat area and 5 cents in Municipality/Corporation areas.

2. The facts slightly differ. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017 were repeatedly before this Court and having obtained orders directing consideration of conversion of user, had been faced with orders of refusal; the last one impugned in the writ petition, for reason of the Circular of 2016. W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 is a case in which the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, which was transmitted to the 2nd respondent and left without any consideration. W.P. (C) No. 21438 of 2017 again challenge an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer [for brevity “RDO”] refusing to allow conversion of user despite a judgment of this Court in their favour.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Ravindran, appearing in W.P. (C) No. 13194 of 2017, contended that in the teeth of the declarations made by this Court, in the earlier judgments inter-parties, and the clear factual finding that the land is not included in the data bank, there was no reason for the RDO to have declined the permission sought for under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. The Circular, it is argued, cannot fetter the discretion conferred on the District Collector/RDO under the KLU Order. It is pointed out that the Circular seems to have proceeded on the strength of an earlier order, G.O. (Rt) No. 157/2002/A.D. dated 05.02.2002, the effect and purpose of which was explained by this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph vs. Sub Collector, 2015 (3) KLT 182. This Court in the cited decision also considered the provisions under the KLU Order and found that the Order of 05.02.2002 cannot control the provisions of the subordinate legislation. Clause 6 was found to have conferred a discretion on the District Collector/RDO to consider the conversion of user of lands in which cultivation has not been carried on for the last three years.

4. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in B. Rajagopala vs. S.T.A. Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1573, Chandrika Jha vs. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 41, Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank, (1991) 3 SCC 219, Basheer vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, 2016 (2) KLT 108 and Sugathan vs. Shahul Hameed, 2006 (4) KLT 54 (F.B.) to bring home the well established proposition that the exercise of discretion conferred on a quasi-judicial authority cannot be fettered by directions or executive orders; which would be completely inconsistent with the well-accepted notion of judicial process. It is also pointed out that Paul J. Manjooran vs. Suhas, 2017 (2) KHC 967 specifically found the impugned Circular to be incapable of overriding the provisions of KLU Order.

5. Sri. Vincent K.C. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17034 of 2017 would specifically point out that the Order of 2002, which is produced as Exhibit P10, was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2012 (3) KLT 333 only since the prayer in that case was for correction of Basic Tax Register (BTR) from “Nilam” to “garden land” for the purpose of construction of a residential house. The terms of Exhibit P10 have been read out to assert that while Exhibit P10 is a mere guideline, the presently impugned Circular clearly undermines the discretion conferred on the authority by the KLU Order. It is pointed out that the words employed in Clause 6 clearly