The court dismissed a writ petition alleging illegal reclamation of paddy land. It observed that an intermediary aquaculture/fish farming activity was permissible and that a stop memo had already been issued. The bench declined to interfere unless statutory violations were noted.
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 MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/23TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 5909 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
PRASANTH BHATTATHIRI, AGED 43 YEARS S/O JAYANARAYANAN BHATTATHIRI, VADAKKE MOODAMBADI ILLAM, RAMAPURAM, KEERIKKAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690508
BY ADVS. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) MANU SRINATH NIMESH THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 2 :
BY ADVS. SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS N.V.VINAY ARUN P. ANTONY RENJIT GEORGE(K/696/1999) SMT.RESHMI.K.M., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 3 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
W.P.(C) No.5909 of 2023
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2023
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 4 :
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 5 :
respondent-RDO and the 2nd respondent-District Collector are duty bound to interfere in the matter, contended the counsel for the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 6 :
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.
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 7 :
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.
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 8 :
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.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/12.09.2023
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 9 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5909/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.04.2022 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE 'PADASHEKHARAM' |
| IN BLOCK NO. 20 AT KEERIKKAD VILLAGE | |
| OF KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT |
|
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 10TH RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RECEIPT |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT- SECRETARY |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT- VILLAGE OFFICER |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT- VILLAGE OFFICER |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT- |
| AGRICULTURAL OFFICER | |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT- TAHSILDAR ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE |
| EXHIBIT P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER |
| AND OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT- RDO |
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
: 10 :
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT- DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT- DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNDS AND ALLIED STRUCTURES BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SOWING OF PADDY AND THE PRESENT STAGE OF CULTIVATION OF THE PADDY
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT R11(A) |
TRUE COPY NO.KL04041000632/ |
OF 2023 |
TA |
X RECIEPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT R11(B) | TRUE COPY NO.KL04041000633/ |
OF 2023 |
TA |
X RECIEPT |
| EXHIBIT R11(C) | SALE DEED KAREELAKULANGARA |
NO SRO |
.2181 DATED |
/2012 OF 17.12.2012 |
| EXHIBIT R11(D) | PHOTOGRAPHS OF | PET | ITION | ERS HENCMEN |
| ENTERING INTO |
1 | 1ST | RESPONDENTS | |
| PROPERTY TO D | ESTR | UCT | PISCICULTURE | |
| FARMING AND PHO | TOGR | APHS | SHOWING THE | |
| FLEX PUBLISHED RESPONDENT |
TO | DEFAM | E THE 11TH |
: 11 :
W.P.(C) No.5909/2023
| EXHIBIT R11(E) | TRUE | COPY | OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY |
|---|---|---|---|
| THE | PETIT | IONER TO THE FISHERIES | |
| MININ | STER | SHRI SAJI CHERIYAN DATED | |
| 15.02 | .2023 | ||
| EXHIBIT R11(F) | TRUE | COP | Y OF COMPLAINT DATED |
| 07/03 | /2023 | FILED BY THE 11TH | |
| RESPO POLIC |
NDENT E ALAP |
BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUZHA |
|
| EXHIBIT R11(G) | TRUE | COPY | OF RECIEPT ISSUED FROM |
| SUPER DATED |
INTEND 07/03 |
ENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA /2023 |
|
| EXHIBIT R11(H) | TRUE 07/03 |
COPY /2023 |
OF REPRESENTATION DATED MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT R11(I) | TRUE OFFIC 07/03 |
COPY E OF /2023 |
OF RECIEPT ISSUED FROM THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's reclamation activity violates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Whether the respondent officers were in default for not acting on the petitioner's complaints.
Whether the 11th respondent's aquaculture activity constitutes illegal reclamation of paddy land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha [2021 (5) KLT 737]Referred¶53
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prasanth Bhattathiri
State of Kerala
District Collector, Alappuzha
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur
James Mathew
N. NAGARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
