Sabarinath G. and Reeja S. Rajan v. District Collector, Alappuzha; Revenue Divisional Officer; Village Officer; Local Level Monitoring Committee; Municipal Chairman, Ezhuppunna Grama Panchayath; Convenor, District Level Authorised Committee; Principal Agricultural Officer; Agriculture Officer, Ezhuppunna

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019(N)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 MR.SABARINATH.G., AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF SRI.GOVINDAN. 2 MRS. REEJA S. RAJAN, AGED 34 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. SABARINATH G, BOTH RESIDING AT NADUVILA PULITHARA, EZHUPUNNA P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688 537 AND BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI. ARUN GOPAN G, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF SRI. GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT NADUVILA PULITHARA, EZHUPUNNA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 537.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.S.SUDHEESH SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**KIDANGAPARAMBU, THATTAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-688 013.**| |**3**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE OFFICE, EZHUPUNNA,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-688 537.**| |**4**|**THE CHAIRMAN,**| ||**LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, (AS PER KERALA**| ||**CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008,),**| ||**THE MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**BUILDING NO.296, ERAMALLUR EZHUPUNNA RD., EZHUPUNNA,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-688 537. (*SUBSTITUTED)**| WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -2- ***THE CONVENOR, DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE, (AS PER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008). THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA688548.** **AS PER ORDER DATED 29.3.2019 IN I.A.NO.1/2019.** **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA-688 548** **BY SRI PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, are husband and wife and are stated to be the owners in possession of 10.62 Ares of land in Survey No.224/2B of Ezhupunna Village in Cherthala Taluk covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.1553/2012 of Sub Registrar Office, Kuthiyathodu dated 12.07.2012. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4[th ] respondent, the Convenor of the District Level Authorised Committee, to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioners, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. On 11.03.2019, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. On 19.3.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioners have not made any application before the appropriate authority. The learned Government Pleader was directed to file a statement of the 2[nd] respondent. 4. On 8.4.2019, when this writ petition came for WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -4- consideration the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners shall move a proper application before the appropriate authority. 5. On 29.03.2019, I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by the petitioners for amendment of the writ petition was allowed and the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions as to whether Ext.P3 application is now pending consideration before the appropriate authority. 6. On 02.07.2019, when this writ petition came for consideration, learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision of this Court in **Thankachan Vs. District Collector [2017 (3) KLT 35]** since as per Ext.P1 document the petitioner purchased the property in question on 12.07.2012, ie., after the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. During the course of arguments, placing reliance on the relevant extract of the data-bank, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners' property WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -5- covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is not included in data-bank either as 'wetland' or as 'paddy land'. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would point out that as per the data-bank (Sl. No.2536), the property in Survey No.224/2-B, in the name of one Abraham, Puthiyamoolayil, is included as 'wetland'. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed was not part of property at Sl. No.2536 as the vendor in Ext.P1 is one Padmavathy Amma and in such circumstances the petitioners' property is an un-notified land as defined in clause (xvii A) of Section 2 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as amended by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, ie., Act 29 of 2018, in which event the petitioners can very well make an application for change of nature of that un-notified land, by filing an application under Section 27A of the Act, before the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. 9. This Court need not go into those issues in this writ petition, since the only relief sought for is consideration of Ext.P3 application, which is one invoking the provisions under Section 9 of that Act, for constructing a residential building, WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -6- after reclamation of the paddy land. 10. Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, was enacted to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act defines the term 'conversion' to mean the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. Clause (xii) of Section 2 defines the term 'paddy land' to mean all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals; Clause (xviii) of Section 2 defines the term 'wetland' to mean land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterised by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -7- marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers. 11. Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land. As per sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per sub-section (2), nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation. 12. As per clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall have the power, subject to the provisions of the said Act, to recommend to the District Level Authorised Committee for the reclamation of paddy land, for construction of residential building of the owner of the paddy land. As per the proviso to clause (i), the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall not recommend for WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -8- filling of paddy land of more than an extent of 4.04 Ares in Panchayat or an extent of 2.02 Ares in Municipality/ Corporation area, as the case may be, for the construction of residential building of the owner of the paddy land. 13. Section 9 of the Act deal with constitution of District Level Authorised Committee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 9, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision. As per proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9, the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be. As per subsection (5) of Section 9, the District Level Authorised Committee shall take decision on the recommendations made available to it within one month. 14. As per sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act, WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -9- notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District; the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. As per sub-section (9) of Section 9, the order issued by the District Level Authorised Committee under sub-section (5) or the District Collector under sub-section (7) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the land and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded. A sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order. 15. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, an application for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land shall be submitted before the Local Level Monitoring Committee in WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -10- Form No.1, after remitting the requisite Court fee of Rs.10/-. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has to obtain an enquiry report from the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer on the matters enumerated in sub-section (7) of Section 9 and thereafter, place that application before the District Level Authorised Committee with its recommendations. Then, the District Level Authorised Committee shall take a decision on that recommendation made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, within the time limit specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. In the application submitted in Form No.1, the applicant has to give a declaration that such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; the applicant, who is the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District; the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. 16. In **Thankachan K.S. v. District Collector, Alappuzha and others [2017 (3) KHC 402]** , in the context of sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -11- Paddy Land and Wetland Act, this Court held that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific word employed in Section 9 of the Act is 'considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of the paddy land'. The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. A property purchased for the purpose of constructing residential building, after implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, cannot be exempted. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. If each member of the family is excluded, then the statutory restriction would be rendered in effective and otiose. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said decision read WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -12- ## thus; “5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court, reported in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others, 2015 (5) KHC 103. A reading of the decision indicates that 'Family' as referred under S.9(8)(ii) of the Paddy Land Act was found to be the family consisting of applicant, his wife and children and it cannot be stretched to an extent to include his father or grandfather. On facts the present case can be distinguished. In the present case, the father claims exemption and the rejection has been on the ground that the family has another property. If each member of the family is excluded according to the person before Court, then, the statutory restriction would be rendered ineffective and otiose. 6. It is also to be noticed that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific words employed in Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act is '... considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land' (emphasis supplied). The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/ agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. Here, about 10 cents of paddy land was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing a residential building, that too, in 2014 after the implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is the said land which was sought to be exempted. 7. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -13- small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption, especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined the claim and a contrary direction would go against the clear statutory interdict.” 17. In **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus; " **15.** .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -14- function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [1966 (1) SCR 120 : AIR 1966 SC 334], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144 : AIR 1962 SC 1210] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964]. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." (underline supplied) ## 18. In **Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal** **Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280]** the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -15- on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision read thus; " **11.** The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. : **Note 187** .- Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -16- which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. **Note 192** .- Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. **Note 196** .- Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and Judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court may, and should, look to the larger public WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -17- interest which may be concerned - an interest which private litigants are apt to over look when striving for private ends. The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. **Note 206** .- .......... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. **12.** These very principles have been adopted in our country. In **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149]** , after referring to the earlier decisions in **Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [AIR 1966 SC 334]** , **Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210]** and **Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964]** , this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports: "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -18- performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ......... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -19- the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant bank to declare their account as NPA from 31[st] March, 2000 and apply RBI guidelines to their case." 19. **In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC** **309]** the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus; " **10.** Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of its erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -20- whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. ......." ## 20. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC** **259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. Vide: State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [(1996) 8 SCC 90], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [1996 (9) SCC 309], Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 453], University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264] and Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SCC 560]. WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -21- 21. In **Vinod Kumar v. District Geologist and others** **[2019 (3) KHC 79]** in the context of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, this Court held that if the application made seeking permission under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 for mineral transit pass is not supported by the mandatory documents as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the District Geologist in discharging his statutory obligations, so as to enable the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for considering that application. When the application made by the petitioner is not supported by the mandatory documents, as per the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, this Court cannot direct the District Geologist to consider that application in contravention of the statutory provisions, as no mandamus can be issued to do something which is contrary to law. 22. In the instant case, the petitioner purchased the property in question on 12.07.2012 vide Ext.P1 document, WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -22- after the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, which cannot be granted exemption from the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Act against conversion or reclamation of paddy land, by seeking permission for reclamation of that land for constructing a residential building. 23. Viewed in the light of the law laid in the decisions referred to Supra, conclusion is irresistible that no writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the 4[th] respondent to consider Ext.P3 application made by the petitioners, which is one submitted before the 5[th] respondent Agricultural Officer or Ext.P4 application produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, which is one submitted before the Principal Agricultural Officer. This Court cannot direct consideration of that applications, contrary to the statutory provisions, as no mandamus can be issued to do something contrary to law. 24. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property in question is an 'un-notified land', in respect of which they can WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -23- move an application under Section 27A of the Act for change of nature of land, before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** VV WP(C).No.7135 OF 2019 -24- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1553/2012 OF KUTHIYATHODU SUB REGISTRY DATED 12.07.2012** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 107/PR/18 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH A LOCATION SKETCH AND MAHAZAR TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.12.2018** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2018** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2019** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE