Disposed

Sabu a John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2022WP(C)/5432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an injunction issued by the Village Officer prohibiting farming activities, claiming they were necessary for weed removal and bund strengthening under a valid aquaculture license without constituting land conversion. The petitioner filed an explanation addressing the injunction's concerns regarding the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland A

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 4th respondent (Village Officer) to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner within six weeks.

Sabu a John Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5432 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SABU A JOHN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. A.M. JOHN, ALUNKAL HOUSE,KUTTUR P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN-680 013.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-675 001

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, KOCHI-682 030

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, IST FLOOR, K.B.JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 001

¶13

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, KUREEKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 305

¶14

5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶15

FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM ZONE, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O,
NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 018

¶16

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 312

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C) No.5432 of 2021.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 14th day of December, 2022 .

¶23

The petitioner is the owner and in possession of 1 Acre 20 cents of wetland comprised in Sy.No.109/2 in Kurikkad Village, Ernakulam District. The said land was lying fallow without any agricultural activities. He has converted 50 cents of the said property for the purpose of fish farming. After obtaining necessary license and permission from the 5^th respondent, the petitioner started removing weeds from the land and also strengthening the outer bund which was destroyed in 2018 flood. While the cleaning activities as well as the strengthening of the bund was in progress, the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P6 injunction order prohibiting the activities in the property. It is stated therein that the petitioner has converted and reclaimed the paddy land in violation of the provisions of

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.5432 of 2021.

¶26

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short). Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation and Ext.P8 representation before respondents 2 and 4 respectively stating that the activities carried out does not amount to conversion of paddy land. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Ext.P7 explanation, Ext.P6 injunction order is not vacated by the 4^th respondent.

¶27

The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Mariadas C.B. v. State of Kerala and Others 2020 (5) KHC 611 and contends that the cleaning activities including the removal of weeds and strengthening of the bund of the aqua farm will not come within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.5432 of 2021.

¶31

Since the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 explanation to Ext.P6 injunction order, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner. All contentions of the petitioner including the decision cited in Mariadas C.B (Supra) shall be considered by the 4^th respondent while taking final decision. The 4^th respondent will be free to call for reports if any, from the Agricultural Officer. Orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶34

Raj. 14.12.2022.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.5432 of 2021.

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5432/2021

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2086/1999 DTD. 10.08.1999.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE AQUACULTURE LICENSE
CERTIFICATE
NO.EKM/FWF/LIC/FISH/2020/687 DTD.
25.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 ATRUE COPY OF THE AQUACULTURE LICENSE
CERTIFICATE NO.
EKM/FWF/LIC/FISH/UDPA/2021/687 DTD.
12.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE DTD. 25.01.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. B2-
2639/13 DTD. 25.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P5TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLEANING
ACTIVITIES AND RENOVATION OF THE OUTER
BUND.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER NO.
2/2020 DTD. 04.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/EXPLANATION
DTD. 18.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5432 of 2021.

¶43

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PRESENT
STATUS OF THE PROPERTY, TAKEN DURING
FEBRUVARY 2021.

Sabu a John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu a John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Vs Ani. P.N.

Laila, Vs Secretary, Vadanapally Grama Panchayat

Kv Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thahasildar (Lr)

Bhaskaran Nair, Vs the Secretary

M.P.Josemon Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat

Binu v. Vs Joint Chief Controller of Explosives