1. Introduction:
God’s own country is also man’s paradise, with teeming millions trying to have a foothold, better expressed, a secure roof over their heads. With the density of population at three times the national average, here man is, insidiously, perhaps out of compulsion, waging a turf war with the nature - the trees and water, especially. The inelastic land resource fast getting exhausted for non - agricultural purposes, the State stares at the prospect of rendering itself a consuming society, rather than a producing one. Then step in the Government and the Legislature with measures to protect the nature’s province: Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 have been brought on to the Statute books.

2. To gauge the pressure of people on nature’s habitat can be quoted this excerpt from a news report (the Hindu, May 18, 2013), which is based on the latest census. The density of population in Kerala has gone up to 860 persons per square kilometre from a figure of 819 in 2001. The highest density of 1,508 persons per sq. km is reported from Thiruvananthapuram district, while Idukki with 255 has the lowest density. Malappuram with a population of 41,12,920, is the most populated District in the State, while Wayanad with 8,17,420 is the least populated. The total number of households in Kerala as per the census is 78,53,754, with the average household size put at 4.3. In 2001, the household size was 4.7; Malappuram District with 5.2 as average household size is at the top, while Pathanamthitta district with 3.7 has the lowest household size.

3. Adjudicatory Ambit:
This batch of writ petitions throws up the issue of inter - play between a secondary legislation - the Kerala Land Utilisation Order - and a primary legislation - the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Put differently, whether both the enactments, notwithstanding the disparity in the source of their origins, stand simultaneously to hold their respective fields or the latter subsumes the former from the day of its enactment or enforcement? In other words, whether these two pieces of legislation conflate or conflict in resolving the issue of conversion of - compendiously expressed - agricultural lands into non - agricultural lands.

4. Many of the cases in the batch have shades of variance, factual and legal. Nevertheless, the primary issue remains whether the authorities of the Local Self Governments are bound to grant building permits, once the nature of the property stood changed prior to the enforcement of the Wetland Act, 2008, despite the fact that the land still continues to be reflected in the revenue records as nilam or of similar description. As per S.2 (38) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, nilam means land adopted for paddy cultivation.

5. Brief Facts:
While keeping in view the differences in the facts of the individual writ petitions, which will be adverted to at an appropriate time, if at all they call for separate treatment; I propose to take up the facts in WP (C) No. 3198/2015 for the narrative purpose and for examining the issue essentially common in all the writ petitions. I may, therefore, ever so briefly touch upon the facts of the matter, which are as follows:

6. The petitioner, employed abroad, is the owner in possession of 43 ares of land in Sy. No. 484 of Kuttapuzha Village, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 02/07/2011. Through Ext. P2, dated 05/06/2012, the Village Officer filed a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the property in question is bounded by road on the southern side and by residential properties on all other sides. To the similar effect is Ext. P3 certificate dated 23/05/2012 issued by the agricultural Officer, who is also the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. They have certified that the petitioner’s property is not fit for paddy cultivation.

7. Ext. P4 is the extract of the entries in data bank pre