The court confirmed that reclamation of paddy land for residential construction is permissible under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act if no adverse impacts are shown.

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C.J.

Before the writ court, in W.P.(C.) No.35139 of 2015, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same by the issuance of the writ in the nature certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction, compelling and commanding respondents 1 to 4 not to permit respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to convert their paddy land into garden land.”

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of Exhibit-P5 Revision Petition by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, 1st respondent - by order dated 6/11/2015.

2.2 The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were permitted by the respondents 3 and 4 – District Level Authorised Committee (under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ) represented by its Chairman, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam; and the Principal Agricultural Officer, Convenor, District Level Authorised Committee (under ), Civil Station, Kollam, to reclaim the paddy land and convert the same into a garden land for constructing a building comprised in Survey No.423/9-2 and 423/9-1 of Perinad Village (hereinafter referred to as the paddy land).

2.3 The petitioner challenged that order before the 2nd respondent - District Collector, by filing an appeal. The 2nd respondent dismissed the Appeal by the order dated 13/5/2014. Against the Order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent.

2.4 Due to non consideration of the revision by the 1st respondent, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)

No.11798/2015. This Court, by judgment dated 9.4.2015, directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass final order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5 & 6.

2.5 The 1st respondent dismissed the Revision Petition by Ext.P1 order and the same has been passed, without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, Ext. P1 order is to be set aside and the respondents 1 to 4 are to be directed not to permit the respondents 5 and 6 to reclaim the paddy land and hence, the writ petition is filed.

3. Ext.P1 is an order dated 06.11.2015 in G.O.(Rt)

No. 1867/2015/Agriculture, issued by the 1st respondent – the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Kerala, rejecting the revision petition filed by Mr. Karunakaran Pillai, appellant/petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 11798/2015.

4. After adverting to the submissions, writ court, vide judgment dated 18.12.2015 in W.P.(C.) No. 35139 of 2015, dismissed the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:- “This writ petition is filed challenging orders passed by the authority under the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) allowing party respondents to reclaim 10 cents of land for the purpose of constructing residential building in the property, which is included in the draft data bank.

2. The petitioner, challenging the above order has also filed a revision. All authorities have concurred with original authority allowing party respondents to reclaim the land for the purpose of constructing residential building.

3. There cannot be any dispute that 10 cents of land can be reclaimed for the the purpose of constructing residential building in terms of Act 28 of 2008. The finding of fact entered into by all authorities is that party respondents are eligible for reclamation and reclamation can be allowed without adversely affecting the surrounding area.

4. In such circumstances, this Court cannot alter the finding of the fact entered into by the authority. There is no error in exercise of the decision making process of the authority. Further, the petitioner is also unable to establish before the competent authority that he is