JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order imposing conditions to complete the construction works of the building within six months and also restraining the alienation of the property for a period of ten years. 2. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “a. call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the conditions imposed in it to complete the works of reclamation and construction of the building within 6 months of the order and restraining the alienation of the property for a period of 10 years, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b. declare that the petitioner is entitled to proceed with the works of reclamation and construction of the property without any time limit for its completion and that he is competent to alienate or encumber the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed ignoring the conditions imposed under Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties admeasearing 2.44 Ares of land in Re.Sy No.11/4-1 in Block No.8 of Kuttapuzha Village, Pathanamthitta District obtained by her as per sale deed No.2418/2016 dated 1.9.2016 of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Thiruvalla. The petitioner is not having any building of her own and decided to put up a building in the property, which is lying as garden land for more than 30 years. The property, though not included in the draft data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records. The petitioner submitted an application seeking reclamation of the land before the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor. After consideration of the application, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order dated 19.6.2017 permitting the construction of the residential building in the property subject to conditions. The conditions in Ext.P3 were that the work should be finished within six months from the date of the order and the petitioner shall not alienate the property for a period of ten years, which should be noted in the thandapper records. Due to the aforesaid conditions imposing restrictions, the petitioner was not in a position to raise a loan from any financial institution. Due to the aforesaid conditions imposing restrictions, the petitioner was not in a position to raise a loan from any financial institution. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking for a direction to delete the restrictions imposed in Ext.P3 order, which was of no avail. Hence, aggrieved by the said restrictions in Ext.P3, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned condition Nos. 3 & 5 in Exhibit P3 order, which are clearly in violation of her fundamental rights including her right to life and property. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the property is lying as garden land with old trees for last more than 30 years and it is not fit for any sort of cultivation. The description of the property as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records is based upon the classification of the property, many decades ago. It was further submitted that no where in the Act or rules framed thereunder whereby any official including the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, has been empowered to issue order imposing conditions in the nature as stated in Ext.P3 so as to prohibit the land owner from alienating and transferring the subject property or to complete the construction of the house within a time limit. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that such conditions are imposed by the 2nd respondent to ensure that only bona fide persons apply for such regularisation and also the restrictions are imposed so that the petitioner is incapacitated from selling the property to third parties after construction of the building. 7. I have considered the aforementioned submissions on both sides. The provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 permit and approve conversion of small extent of paddy land solely for construction of residential house for its owners. 8. Sections 9(1) and 9(8) of the Act read as follows: “9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision. Sections 9(1) and 9(8) of the Act read as follows: “9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision. Provided that the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that,- (i) such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; (ii) the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District. (iii) the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and (iv) such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands.” 9. The conditions imposed in Exhibit P3 clause Nos.3 & 5 are as follows: 10. It is clear that on being satisfied, the authority which is constituted to grant permission to construct building in terms of Section 9(1) & 9(8) of the Act, can accord permission to the applicant to construct residential building. That does not mean a superior right is available to such authority to restrain/bar the absolute right of the petitioner over her property. The petitioner has approached the authority for conversion of her property for construction of a residential building in the property. But the condition nos.3 & 5 in Ext.P3 would clearly show that the authority has imposed a condition restraining her from selling her property and also given a direction to complete the construction of the building within 6 months. None of the authorities as per the Act of 2008 is empowered to pass any order so as to interfere with the proprietary rights of the landowner to alienate, encumber or transfer the land as well as the proprietary right conferred as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. None of the authorities as per the Act of 2008 is empowered to pass any order so as to interfere with the proprietary rights of the landowner to alienate, encumber or transfer the land as well as the proprietary right conferred as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Imposing restrictions in Ext.P3 order is unjust, unwarranted and violates Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 do not have any jurisdiction or competence to put such conditions that the landowner has to complete the construction within six months and also imposing a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 10 years, which is clearly violative of the provisions of the said Act. A prohibition on the right of the landowner to transfer or alienate the land is without any authority and is in violation of the right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 11. A similar issue was considered in Subeesh K.R v. Nadathara Grama Panchayat and Others, ( 2019(5) KHC 725 ) wherein this Court held that nowhere in the Paddy land Act is any power given to DLAC (District Level Authorized Committee) to permanently prohibit transfer of converted paddy land, which conversion is regularized under their orders, and hence no amount of persuasion can vest them with such powers. Similarly in Ansy Rajan v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others ( 2020(4) KHC 403 ), it was held that the authorities either under the Kerala Land Utilization Order or under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 does not have any jurisdiction or competence to put a condition that the landowner cannot alienate, encumber or transfer the land while dealing with alleged cases of violations as per those provisions. In Ramankutty v. Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram (2014 KHC 3692), it was held that while granting permission for construction under S.9(1) & S.9(8) of the Act, the District level Authorised Committee cannot impose any condition restricting the right of alienation of the property by the owner. 12. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent while passing Ext.P3 order, has imposed conditions directing the landlord to complete the construction within six months and also not to alienate the property for 10 years. 12. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent while passing Ext.P3 order, has imposed conditions directing the landlord to complete the construction within six months and also not to alienate the property for 10 years. The condition not to alienate the property was also directed to be included in the thandapper account. This is against the powers given under the said Act. No authority of law, permits the officers under the said Act to impose such conditions or restrictions while permitting the applicant to reclaim the land for construction of residential building and such restraint on transfer of the property by the State or its functionaries is constitutionally impermissible. The DLAC, though has powers for regularization of the conversion of the property, is not authorized to impose conditions completely restricting the owner from alienating his/her properties for a period of 10 years or imposing a condition to complete the construction within 6 months, which is against the imaginable thoughts of a normal citizen. No provisions of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 or the rules framed thereunder empower any official including the 2nd respondent, RDO, to issue such restrictions or conditions from alienating and transferring of the property. In Subeesh K.R (supra), it has been held that no power has been given to an authority like the DLAC to permanently prohibit transfer of converted paddy land and that such impugned condition would be in flagrant violation of the precious right to the property guaranteed as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that no citizens can be deprived of his/her rights as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India except through procedures sanctioned by law. 13. The Government of Kerala as per Circular No.61519/R.A.1/2011/LSGD dated 27.10.2012 and Circular No.1663/R.A1/2013/LSGD dated 05.02.2013 has given direction to all officers to impose a condition not to transfer/alienate the property for a period of ten years while granting permission for construction of building and also not to grant permission for change of registry and request for occupancy certificate. The said Circulars were subsequently withdrawn as per Government Order G.O(MS) No.214/2017/LSGD dated 01.11.2017 finding that the aforesaid circulars are violative of the provisions in the Act. 14. The said Circulars were subsequently withdrawn as per Government Order G.O(MS) No.214/2017/LSGD dated 01.11.2017 finding that the aforesaid circulars are violative of the provisions in the Act. 14. The petitioner, who is a lady, not having a residential building of her own, has approached the authorities for reclamation of the property for construction of a building in the property and the authorities, though allowed the request for reclamation have imposed condition Nos. 3 and 5 in Ext.P3 restricting the petitioner from alienating the property and also limiting a period for completing the construction of the building. Such restrictions and conditions imposed in Ext.P3 are illegal, ultra vires and unenforcible. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The condition Nos.3 and 5 in Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly.