JUDGMENT : An interesting question arises for consideration in this case, it is about the widening of existing ‘chiravaramba’ in a paddy land. Chiravaramba the way used for the beneficial enjoyment of a paddy land. The point is whether the act of widening would attract the proceedings under S.13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 2. The facts are not in much dispute. The petitioner - Subramonian Namboothiri owned 2.18 acres of land in Re.Sy.No.187/1 of Mangalam Village. Pending Writ Petition, Subramonian Namboothiri died. His legal heir is proceeding the case now. Admittedly, the land is being cultivated with paddy. In the East and South side there are thodu and chiravamba. In the State the ‘chiravaramba’ is treated as a part of paddy land. This was used for the purpose of entering into the paddy land for cultivation. 3. Section 3 of the Paddy Land Act prohibits conversion or reclamation of paddy land. Sub-section 3(2) states nothing would apply in sub-s.3(1) placing prohibition on reclamation of land if such activities are to strengthen the outer-buds for protecting the cultivation. There are no statutory provisions in regard to ‘chiravaramba’. The owner of the paddy land can reclaim the paddy land as specified under S.9 for the limited purpose of putting up a residential building. It is in this background, the alleged widening of the ‘chiravaramba’ has to be viewed. 4. This Court cannot assume any act of reclamation of existing paddy land not amounting to changing the character of paddy land would attract the prohibition under Sec.3 of the Act 28 of 2008. The ‘chiravaramba’ is used to exist in the paddy land even during olden days to reach the paddy land. Those days there were no motorable or other vehicles taken to the paddy land. By passage of time instead of relying human resources for the movement of paddies, tractors or other vehicles are required to be used. It appears that the petitioner had widened the existing ‘chiravaramba’ to take vehicles into the paddy land. The original width of ‘chiravaramba’ was 4 ft. It has now been enhanced to 10 ft. 5. As seen from the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, the act of widening had not adversely affected the paddy land. It is also reported that it has not affected the free flow of the water. The original width of ‘chiravaramba’ was 4 ft. It has now been enhanced to 10 ft. 5. As seen from the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, the act of widening had not adversely affected the paddy land. It is also reported that it has not affected the free flow of the water. It is reported by the Village Officer that this way is essentially used for to reach the paddy land. If any reclamation not affecting the existing paddy land and if it was for the purpose of paddy land, such reclamation cannot come within the prohibition of under S.3 of the Act. If the reclamation was substantially for the purposes other than for paddy land, necessarily it would attract S.3 of the Act. It appears that widening the ‘chiravaramba’ is only for the purpose of paddy cultivation. No doubt, it may be incidentally used for other purposes. The substantial use as seen from the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer is for the agricultural purposes. Such reclamation will not come within the ambit of S.3 of the Act. There is no statutory provision for seeking permission for reclamation of any paddy land for the benefit of the paddy land itself. There should have been some statutory provision in the Act to seek prior permission for such activity. In the absence of any statutory provision, any reclamation done for the benefit and use of the paddy land, cannot be brought within the prohibited activities as under S.3 of the Act. The power of the District Collector under S.13 would come into play only when activities carried in contravention of S.3 of the Act. 6. In such circumstances, I find the impugned order is without any basis. Accordingly, it is set aside. I make it clear that the petitioner’s act of widening the existing ‘chiravaramba’ is only for the beneficial enjoyment of the paddy land. In the light of above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.