The affirmation of the District Collector's order regarding land conversion application is upheld, confirming no pending applications exist, and potential review of earlier judgments remains permissible.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The appellants' father filed an application under the KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER , 1967 (for short, KLU Order), on 20.11.2013 before the Land User's Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. This is for correcting the Basic Tax Register. Thereafter, the appellants' father approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.30236 of 2013 for consideration of his application. This Court directed the appellants' father to file a proper application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the District Collector. Accordingly, on 03.01.2014, an application was filed before the District Collector. This was considered by the District Collector, and an Order was passed on 25.08.2014. The District Collector is of the view that since the appellants' father had already converted the land and constructed an industrial unit, there is no point in considering his request for conversion and, accordingly, rejected the application.

2. The appellants' father challenged the Order of the District Collector dated 25.08.2014 before this Court in W.P. (C) No.24261 of 2014. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20.10.2014 interfered with the order of the District Collector.

3. Thereupon, the State took up the matter in appeal (W.A. No.651 of 2015) before the Division Bench. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 17.03.2016 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and affirmed the order of the District Collector. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the order passed by the District Collector now stands affirmed.

4. The appellants/petitioners submit that the Division Bench relegated the appellants' father to file a 3A application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act), and since then, the 3A application under the Act has been abrogated, and his original application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order shall be considered. It is to be noted that the challenge is against the order in original application, which has been concluded by the Division Bench Judgment. That means there is no such application pending before the District Collector, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.31825 of 2023. However, if the appellants/petitioners have any remedy to seek review of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench, they are free to do so in accordance with law.

The Writ Appeal stands dismissed.