SAROJAM L Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an octogenarian. She is now 85 years old. The petitioner's husband and only son died. She was abandoned by her relatives and hence she is residing in an Orphanage at Kakkanad. The dream of the petitioner now is to construct a house of her own, but it is not materialised because the entire 81 cents of land owned by her is a water logged property. Whether in such a situation, the court can allow the petitioner to construct a residential building after reclaiming a portion of her land by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, when the rigour of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 'Act 2008') and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 (for short 'Rules 2008) is staring against the court is the question to be decided in this case.

(2.) Petitioner is the owner of 81 cents of water logged property comprised in Resurvey Block No.2, Resurvey No. 96/8-2, and 96/11.6 of Mulavukad Village. The last ambition of the petitioner is that she wants to reside in her own house before her death. Some well wishers in the locality are ready to construct a small house for the petitioner if the petitioner could reclaim 10 cents of land out of her 81 cents of property. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has no house of her own and she has no other property except the above said property. Therefore the petitioner submitted an application before the 4th respondent for reclaiming 10 cents of land for construction of a house. Ext.P2 is the application submitted by the petitioner in Form - 1 as per Rules 2008. The 4th respondent forwarded Ext.P2 application to the 5th respondent for his further action with a report, saying that on inspection they could satisfy that the property of the petitioner is waterlogged and she has no other property other than the said property. But the 4th respondent stated in the report that, if 10 cents of paddy is reclaimed, it will affect the environmental system and also that if it is allowed, there is every possibility to get similar request for reclaiming the other surrounding properties as well. Hence the 4th respondent had not recommended for reclamation as per Ext.P1 application. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the 4th respondent along with his report which was sent to the 5th respondent. Since there was no response forthcoming from the 4th respondent, the petitioner again submitted representation before the 4th respondent as evidenced by Ext.P4. Petitioner also submitted representation before the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P5. It is submitted that Exhibit P-5 representation also remains unattended. According to the petitioner, there is a 7-meter width pathway to the property of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there are so many houses situated in the surrounding property of the petitioner. Hence it is submitted that the observation made by the 4th respondent in Ext.P3 report is incorrect. Hence this Writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.