JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and the same point is raised in these writ petitions. Therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2, The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the light of the principle laid down in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [2025 KHC 1637] , a Form-5 application ought not have been filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that they filed Form-5 application by mistake and they want to file an application under Sec.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short 'Act, 2008'). The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners also submitted an application in accordance to Kerala Land Utilization Order in 2015. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and the petitioners may be allowed to file an application under Sec.27A of the Act, 2008 or to proceed based on the KLU application.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. Considering the request of the petitioners that they wants to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, I think the impugned order can be set a