road, it cannot be said that it is surrounded by paddy lands. Further, insofar as the land of the petitioner is situated abutting a public road, I fail to understand as to how the paddy cultivation in the remaining lands would be affected, if permission is granted to reclaim a portion of the land abutting the public road. Coming to the land of the petitioner in Ezhikkara Gr ama Panchayat, the specific case pleaded by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that she intends to put up a residential building having a plinth area of 133 square meters and that she is unable to obtain permission to put up such a building in the said land on account of Coastal Regulation Zone restrictions, are not denied by the fourth respondent. As noted, in the light of sub-sectio n (8) o f Section 9 of the Act, if the owner of the la nd holds anot her suitable land for the purpose of putting up a residential building, he is not entitled to seek permission to reclaim paddy land for the purpose of constructing residential building. The question, therefore, is as to whether the land owned by the petitioner in Ezhikkara Gr ama Panchayat where she is unable to put up a residential building which would satisfy her requirements, could be regarded as a suitable land in terms of sub-sect ion (8) of Section 9 of the Act. Insofar as it is demonstrated that the requirement of the petitioner is to have a residential building having a plinth area of 133 square meters and that such a
