IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2017 PETITIONERS:

1 SHERRY JOSEPH AGED 47 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, CHUDUKATTIL HOUSE, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKKADU, EDATHUA.

2 JESMIMOL W/O. SHERRY JOSEPH, CHUNDUKATTIL HOUSE, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKKADU, EDATHUA.

BY ADV SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDATHUA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. - 689 176.

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2023 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P6 and P10 and quash the same holding that the same is illegal.

(ii) to declare that the construction of an approach road through the manmade vettukuzhy is not reclamation as defined under the provision of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, since the vettukuzhy is not a paddy or wet land.

(iii) To declare that Vettukuzhy created while constructing road is manmade and the same cannot be treated as paddy or wet land and the proceedings under the Conservation of paddy and wet land will not apply in that case (iv) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure property to find out whether there is any excess reclamation in addition to the 10 cents, other than approach road (v) To declare that there was no excess reclamation, and petitioners reclaimed only 10 cents as permitted by the RDO”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had sought permission to convert 10 cents of property for the construction of a residential house since they had no other property. Ext.P1 order was passed granting permission for converting 10 cents of property for the construction of the residence. The conversion was also effected. However, on the ground that the conversion was in excess of 10 cents, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only 10 cents of property had been converted and that a road had to be provided across a low-lying area created due to the construction of the bypass and that the said extent cannot be taken into account to state that the petitioners had reclaimed any property in excess of 10 cents. It is submitted that a Commission had been taken out by the petitioners and a report had also been generated which would show that the conversion was in substantial compliance with Ext.P1.

4. It is stated in the commission report as follows:

“b) Measure and report the extent of property reclaimed with a sketch showing the approach road and the property separately The property and road where separately measured by Surveyor. The total extent of reclaimed property is 04.19 Ares (10.353 cent), extent of the road is 01.18 Ares (2.915 cent) and the sketch of the property measured and prepared by the Taluk Surveyor is enclosed herewith which clearly showing the measurement and is marked as Annexure 2.

c) Report the width of manmade canal and its ownership The vettukuzhy is a manmade canal situated on the southern side of the Ambulappuzha - Thakazhi Road. After the verification the Advocate Commissioner has understood that the vettukuzhy is not a paddy or wet land. It was formed from digging mud while the road was constructed. The petitioners are the owners of the vettukuzhy. The width of the vettukuzhy was measured and it is about 23.5m having depth of 2.5m.”

5. Having considered the contentions adva