ORDER

The review petition has been filed on the ground that in the case on hand there is no KLU order and hence the directions contained is not correct since the facts are dissimilar to those available in WP(C) No.42972/2024. On 05.01.2009, orders have been issued in favour of the husband of the writ petitioner wherein the competent officer has noted that the land has not been cultivated for more than 50 years and it will not come within the purview of the KLU order. This Court has inIype Varghese V. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and Others ( 2020 (6) KHC 770 ) and in the judgment in WP(C) No.27341/2022 held that similar orders are to be treated as orders coming within the purview of Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 .

In the above circumstances, the review petition is misconceived and it is dismissed.