secure any orders on that basis. Moreover, the learned Single Judge while issuing the direction, has clearly protected the interest of the rival parties by stating clearly in the direction that any finding or conclusion made in the judgement shall not in any manner affect the adjudication of the disputes involved in the pending suit in the Munsiff Court, Paravur or Exhibit R7(a) suit filed by the writ, petitioner pending in Sub Court, Kollam. Thus, we come to deal with the legality of the submission made by the writ petitioner that in the suit, the writ petitioner is precluded from seeking direction to the revenue authorities in view of the prohibition created under section 26 of the Act, 2008. Section 26 of the Act, 2008 specifies that no civil court shall grant any injunction or make any order for any other relief against the Government or any officer authorised under the Act in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by the Government or such officer under the Act or the rules or notifications made thereunder, unless notice of such injunction or other relief has been given to the Government or such officer, as the case may be. On a reading of the said provision, it is evident that any relief in regard to the matters covered under the Act 2008 only if the mandatory requirements contained thereunder are satisfied. That apart, the Act, 2008 is a self contained statute having it's own mechanism for consideration of an application for conversion of a paddy field. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the writ petitioner may not be not entitled to seek any relief in a civil suit. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes this clear, which reads thus:
