Prasanth Bhattathiri vs State Of Kerala

N. Nagaresh, J

The petitioner states that he is aggrieved by the inaction of respondents 1 to 10 in taking action against the 11th respondent who is attempting to cause damage and irreparable loss to a padasekharam.

The petitioner states that he is co-owner of the land situated in Survey No.79/4-2 of Block No.20 at Keerikkad Village of Karthikappally Taluk in Alappuzha District. The said land is part of a padasekharam. The 11th respondent, who is owner of land, situated in Survey Nos.65 and 64 of Block No.20, which land is also a part of padasekharam, has adopted dubious methods to reclaim paddy land.

The petitioner alleges that the 11th respondent is digging up and removing ordinary earth upto a depth of 10-15 metres from his paddy land and he has constructed bunds unauthorisedly. The petitioner preferred complaint to the 10 respondent-Secretary to Grama Panchayat. The Secretary issued a stop memo to the 11th respondent. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the 5th respondent-Village Officer also. However, respondents 5 and 6 have not intervened in the matter. Complaints were filed before the Tahsildar, RDO and District Collector which were also not attended to. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the activity conducted by the 11th respondent in the paddy land owned by him amounts to reclamation as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The 5th respondent is bound to prevent such reclamation of paddy land. The 11th respondent is constructing a 15 feet wide bund which is illegal and impermissible. The 3rd respondent-RDO and the 2nd respondent-District Collector are duty bound to interfere in the matter, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

The 11th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 11th respondent submitted that he wanted to conduct paddy cultivation in his land and approached the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer informed the 11th respondent that since top soil has been removed from the field and was not used for a long period, paddy cultivation will not be advisable at this stage. The Agricultural Officer informed the petitioner that the field is suitable for aquaculture/fish farming as an intermediary crop. It would increase the fertility of the land, making the land fit for paddy cultivation again.

Therefore, the 11th respondent obtained permission from Fisheries Department in the year 2020 to start pisciculture in the field. The heavy rains and trespass into the fields caused serious damage to fish farming. In the year 2022, the petitioner again sought advice of the Fisheries Department. The petitioner was advised to strengthen the bund of paddy fields using the slurry and mud from the field. The petitioner is not reclaiming paddy land as alleged, contended the 11th respondent.

The Government Pleader made available a copy of the report dated 28.03.2023 of the Village Officer, Keerikkad. The said report would disclose that the petitioner has obtained no objection from the Fisheries Deputy Director for conduct of aqua farming. The petitioner has also submitted an application to the RDO on 10.02.2023. A stop memo has been issued to the 11th respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 8, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10 and the learned counsel for the 11th respondent.

The allegation of the petitioner is that the 11th respondent is reclaiming paddy land owned by him. According to the petitioner, the land owned by the 11th respondent is part of a larger padasekharam and the reclamation carried out by the 11th respondent is in gross violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner states that though he submitted complaints to the statutory authorities concerned, no action is taken to stop the illegal reclamation.

The defence of the 11th respondent is that he has contacted the Agricultural Officer who has advised in the year 2021 that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation as of then and fish farming / aquaculture in the field would make the paddy field fertile for agriculture in due course. The memo filed by the Government Pleader and the report of the Village Officer produced along with the memo would show that the petitioner has obtained no objection from the Fisheries Department. The petitioner has also submitted application to the RDO in this regard.

In Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha [2021  (5)  KLT 737], this Court held that fish farming is permissible as an intermediary crop in paddy land, as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. If the 11th respondent is taking permissible steps to conduct pisciculture in his land, it cannot be termed as reclamation of paddy land.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find no reason to interfere in the activities of the 11th respondent. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. It is, however, made clear that respondents 2 to 10 will be at liberty to take action against the 11th respondent's activities if any statutory violations are noted.