The court upheld the validity of a condition regarding land use under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, affirming the authority of State officials in such matters.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the restrictive condition contained in Order No.RDOPTM/4156/2022-TII dated 31.10.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent, in so far as it mandates that the petitioner’s property shall be used only for the construction of a residential building, such condition being wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, and liable to be set aside..

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5^th respondent to consider and issue a building permit for the commercial building constructed by the petitioner, without reference to the impugned condition.

Iii. Declare that the petitioner’s land, being reclaimed prior to 2008 and excluded from the Paddy Land Data Bank, is not governed by the restrictions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.

iv.Declare that the 2^nd respondent has no authority under Section 27A to impose restrictions on the nature of construction.

v. Quash the return note dated 10-092025 issued by the 5^th respondent treating the construction as unauthorized.

vi.Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. vii.Award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

viii.Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.”

[SIC]

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved because of a condition in Ext.P1 that the conversion of the property can be used only for the purpose of constructing a residential house. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instruction.

4. The learned Government Pleader, after getting instruction, submitted that the petitioner submitted a Form 6 application for conversion for the purpose of constructing a residential house and, accordingly, the impugned order is not passed. There is nothing wrong in passing Ext.P1 order. If there is any fresh cause of action or other grievance to the petitioner, the same is left open.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-