Gopi V vs Local Level Monitoring Committee And Ors

The petitioner purchased a paddy land in the year 2012. The petitioner claims that he has no other land to construct a residential building. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. This was rejected by the District Level Authorized Committee. The matter was taken up before the Collector in appeal. The appeal also was rejected. Challenging these orders the petitioner approached this Court.

According to the petitioner, there is no land available with him fit for construction of the residential building. It is his case that the orders have been passed without obtaining satellite images in regard to the land. As seen from the impugned order, this was rejected noting that any reclamation of the paddy land would adversely affect the adjoining land. The petitioner submitted that the land is surrounded by many residential building and there is no difficulty in reclaiming the land for residential building.

This Court in Sudheesh vs. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KLT 662] held that the reclamation of paddy land for construction of residential building under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is only available to land owner at the time of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The petitioner admittedly purchased the land after the enactment, knowing fully well that it is a paddy land. Such person is not entitled even for making application under Section 9 the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. In the light of judgment of this Court in Sudheesh's case (Supra), I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for reclamation of the land. Accordingly, the order impugned is sustained and the writ petition is dismissed as in limine.