IMPORTANT POINTS
The provisions for regularization of a paddy land for residential purposes, are certainly forceful and even laudable, it is also beyond contest that, through a statute brought into force by the State of Kerala, the constitutional guarantees of citizens under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India can be neither be inhibited permanently nor abrogated.

JUDGMENT :

Among the stringent provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short), is available one that permits and approves conversion of small extents of Paddy Land solely for construction of a residential house for its owner. This is contained in Section 9(1) and 9(8) of the afore mentioned Act, which reads as under:

“9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee–(1) 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:

Provided that 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.

9(8) – Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that, -

(i) such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land;

(ii) the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District.

(iii) the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and

(iv) such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands”

2. The disputatious aspects in this case revolve around the objectives behind the above provision because, the petitioner, who has obtained a permission to construct a house in his property, which is stated to be a converted paddy land, has also been imposed with a condition in the said order that he can never sell his property in future. The petitioner protests against this condition as being unconstitutional and calls upon me to set it aside.

3. The most essential facts will first require to seen and I narrate it as under:

4. The petitioner impugns the second condition in Exts.P1 and P2 order and building permit respectively, as per which, he has been permanently injuncted from selling his property, having an extent of 9.46 cents of land comprised of in Survey Nos.460/3P, 452/1P, 454/P of Mulayam Village, on the ground that this imposes an unconstitutional restriction on his right to deal with the property in question.

5. The petitioner submits that when he applied for regularization of conversion of his afore mentioned property, which was, in fact, done several decades ago, under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, the District Level Authorized Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the DLAC' for short) issued Ext.P1 order sanctioning such regularization, however, imposing an unreasonable and illegal condition therein that the said land or the construction to be made thereon shall never be sold by him in future.

6. The petitioner says that this is an affront on his constitutional rights, including his right to life and property; and therefore, prays that the impugned condition in Ext.P1 be set aside. He further says that, presumably being guided by the conditions in Ext.P1, the 1st respondent-Nadathara Grama Panchayath has also incorporated an identical restriction in Ext.P2 building permit and therefore, that the same is also liable to be vacated.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader- Smt.K.Amminikutty, in response to the afore submissions made by Shri.T.N.Manoj-learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the DLAC thought it fit to impose certain conditions in Ext.P1 because the petitioner was seeking regularization of an earlier illegal act of conversion of a paddy land. She says that since regularization was granted solely for the purpose of a residential construction for the petitioner and since the provision