JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

We are considering these Appeals together because the constitutive issues raised are analogous; while the writ petitioners are stated to be brothers.

2. The appellants challenge the judgments of the learned Single Judge on the singular ground that the applications preferred by the respondents/writ petitioners in the two Writ Petitions, under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order), was done after 31.12.2017, which is the date on which Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008, was brought into force.

3. Sri.S.Ranjith – learned Senior Government Pleader, argued that, when the applications were preferred much after 31.12.2017, the learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the same to be considered; and hence that the appellants are justified to be in Appeal.

4. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions because, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the direction to consider the applications of the