Appeal against dismissal of WP challenging reclamation of paddy fields for road construction. Bench held Single Judge was correct in denying reliefs as State Level Committee conditions were unmet. Act 2008 does not apply to pre-2008 surrenders but reclamation lacked permission.
The appeal filed by P.T.Joseph is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4546/2016(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
P.T.JOSEPH
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, PATTATHIL VEEDU, EDATHUA VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS. SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.
S.H.NO.40, THODANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY,
4 A.C.KOSHY, ANCHAL HOUSE, ANAPARAMBIL NORTH, KUTTANADU, PIN- 690107.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 689573.
6 EDATHUA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA- 689573.
SR.GP SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
2
R4 & R6 BY ADV. MVS NAMBOOTHIRY(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
3
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY,J
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition having been aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by a learned Single Judge as per a judgement dated 25.1.2019 in W.P.(C) No.4546/2016. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition was for a direction commanding respondents 1 & 2 i.e., the District Collector, Alappuzha and Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha to prevent illegal reclamation of paddy fields taking place in Edasserykkunnam Padasekharam in Edathuava village and alternatively sought for directions to dispose of Ext.P3 complaint submitted by the appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions put forth by the respective parties has arrived at a finding that in view of the report of the State Level Committee constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the conditions stipulated by the Committee in the site inspection report, appellant is not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition. However, the liberty of the appellant was left open to the extent to approach any statutory authorities if other paddy fields which are not
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
4
required for the formation of the road are subjected to conversion.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
5
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
6
effort for the formation of the road through the western and southern outer bunds of the Padasekharam. The efforts of the farmers could be materialised by starting the construction of yet another project of the road through the western and southern outer bunds of the Edasserykkunnam Padasekharam.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
7
provisions of the Act, 2008. It is submitted that, Padippurakkal Kshethram - Kadamkari Palli - Thayankari - Edathua road is a 8.8 Kms. stretch road, construction of which was undertaken by the State Public Works Department. The land owners surrendered their property free of cost in favour of the Government during the year 1997 and alignment was fixed through the surrendered portion of the property. The formation of the road was undertaken in part depending on the fund sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The work of the first stretch of 0/000 Km to 1/400 Km commencing from Padippurakkal Kshethram was started in the year 1999. The second and third stretch of total 1,100 Mtrs. was undertaken between 2005-2008. Again 400 Mtrs. was undertaken in the year 2010. Further a stretch of 500 Mtrs. from 7/900 Km to 8/400 Km (500 Mtrs.) on Edathua side was undertaken during 2008. Thus out of the total 8800 Mtrs. length of the road, a length of 3,550 Mtrs. is complete in all respects.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
8
road completed, the balance to be completed, location of the river etc. etc. It is also submitted that the construction of the road was undertaken by the Public Works Department taking into account the public utility and the public demand. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, since the road was formed and majority of the work is completed and the reclamation was done prior to the introduction of the Act, 2008, the provisions of the Act, 2008 has no application and therefore, the contentions advanced by the appellant cannot be sustained under law.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
9
of the State Level Committee, if in its opinion, such conversion or reclamation will not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy in the adjoining paddy lands, if any, and free flow of water thereto. Other stipulations are contained under the said provision. However, fact remains, it is admitted by all parties that, surrender of the land by the farmers for construction of the road was in the year 1997 whereas the Act, 2008 has come into force on and w.e.f. 12.8.2008 only. In this context section 3 of the Act, 2008 is relevant dealing with prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land. Sub-section (1) read thus:
“On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
Therefore, it is categoric and clear that, the Act, 2008 will apply
only to any reclamation on and with effect from the date of commencement of the Act i.e., w.e.f. 12.8.2008.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
10
period from 1998 to 2008. It is also clear from the statement filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents that, the filling-up of the paddy field was complete in all respects and metalling and other works alone is remaining. According to the learned State Attorney, the work would have been completed long back but due to the scarcity of funds with the Government to carry out the construction by strengthening the outer bunds so as to protect the road from being destroyed consequent to any natural calamities. Even though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, prior to the introduction of the Act, 2008, the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was in force regulating the utilisation of paddy field for other purposes, we have not come across with any provisions under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 whereby the Government is insisted upon to secure the permission from any of the statutory authorities provided thereunder, for filling-up of any paddy field for the purpose of construction of road for the beneficial enjoyment of the public. In that view of the matter also, the contentions advanced by the appellant has no legal and factual sustenance.
WA.No.1091 OF 2019
11
learned Single Judge, though we have our own reasons to arrive at the
conclusions, than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
smv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can show case for interference with the Single Judge judgment regarding illegal reclamation of paddy fields.
Whether the State Level Committee report and conditions stipulated in the site inspection report precluded the appellant from getting reliefs.
Whether the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 applies to the reclamation works undertaken prior to its commencement.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.T.Joseph
The District Collector, Alappuzha
Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha
Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Road Division, Alappuzha
A.C.Kozhy
The Agricultural Officer, Edathua
S.Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
