Kerala High Court
Aji R vs The District Collector on 5 March, 2026
2026:KER:20206
W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23906 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 AJI R.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. RAJAN,KAIPPALLIL, THALEERADI, KADUVINAL P.O.,
VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
2 GOKUL.G.
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, KUNNATHU, THALEERADI, KADUVINAL
P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
3 ABHILASH.B
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.BHADRAN, ABHILASH BHAVANAM, THALEERADI, KADUVINAL
P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
4 SUBHASH.B.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BALACHANDRAN, SUBHASH BHAVANAM, THALEERADI, KADUVINAL
P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
5 SANTHI.I.,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. INDIRAMMA, PRASAD MANDIRAM,THALEERADI, KADUVINAL
P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
6 JILU SANTHAN.V.
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. SHABHU, PADINJARE THAYYIL MEENATHU, VALLIKUNNAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
7 SOUMYA.S.
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O. PUSHPODAYAN, KANDIYIL VADAKKATHIL, THEKKEMURIYIL,
VALLIKUNNAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
8 ASWATHY
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. ASHOKA KUMAR,PATTATHIL VADAKKATHIL, MEENATHU,
VALLIKUNNAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
2026:KER:20206
W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020
:2:
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT,PIN-689 121
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-691 101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE,VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 501
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, VALLIKUNNAM, VALLIKUNNAM (P.O),
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 501
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
GP RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:20206
W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020
:3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.23906 of 2020
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent and also seeking other consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioners are the owners in possession and enjoyment of 1 hector, 45 ares and 45 Square Meters of property comprised in Re-survey Nos. 638/3, 638/4, 638/5, 638/6, 638/7, 638/8, 638/9, 638/10, 638/11, 639/3, 639/4, 639/5 of Vallikunnam Village, Mavelikara Taluk, Alapuzha District, which is purchased by them as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioners submit that in the above said properties, there is a huge pond extending to more than 3.5 Acres which is formed due to excavation of clay and they have purchased the above properties with a view to conduct fish farming activity. Ext.P3 is the certificate of registration issued to the petitioners for conducting fish farming by the Fisheries Department. The petitioners approached the 2nd respondent and filed Ext.P4 application seeking permission to strengthen the mud boundary walls of the pond for the purpose of starting the fish farming.
2026:KER:20206 W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020 :4: Thereupon reports were called for from the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar and 4th respondent Village Officer, which are produced as Exts.P5 and P6. In the said reports it is stated that no ecological imbalance will be caused, if the fish farming is permitted and will not cause any hindrance to the natural water flows to the neighbouring properties. It was further reported that permission for strengthening the mud boundary walls of the pond can be permitted, without causing any room for excavation of soil. Without considering Exts.P5 and P6 reports, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P7 on the sole ground that the subject properties are included in the data bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court filing W.P. (C)No.3987 of 2020, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment, setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application, taking into consideration Exts.P5 and P6 reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Village Officer respectively. Without considering any of these aspects as directed in Ext.P8 judgment, the application has been rejected again as per Ext.P9, holding that the properties are included in the data bank and if permission is granted, it will result in shortage of water for agricultural purpose.
2026:KER:20206 W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020 :5:
3. The petitioners submit that there is total non application of mind by the 2nd respondent while issuing Ext.P9 and that Exts.P5 and P6 reports were not taken into consideration in a proper manner. The petitioners would submit that after rejecting the application as per Ext.P9 order, they have obtained a letter from the Kannamchal Paddy Growers Samithi, which is produced as Ext.P10, giving their absolute concurrence for fish farming and strengthening of mud boundary wall in the said properties. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P11 certificate issued by the Village Officer, wherein it is stated that the conduct of fish farming by the petitioners will not adversely affect cultivation in the neighbouring paddy fields, provided that the same is carried out without making any change to the existing lie of the property. The petitioners have also produced Exts.P12 and P13 affidavits submitted by the neighbouring property owners expressing their no objection in strengthening the mud wall of the subject properties for the purpose of conducting fish farming.
4. The learned Government Pleader, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer dated 23.03.2021, which is produced along with a memo dated 25.03.2021, submits that the subject properties are located near to cultivating paddy fields and if the activities 2026:KER:20206 W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020 :6: sought for by the petitioner is permitted, it will affect cultivation in the nearby paddy field. The learned Government Pleader also brought to my notice paragraph 3 of Ext.P9, wherein it is stated that the property is already lying at a depth of 2 ½ feet and the intention of the petitioners is to increase the depth of the pond by a further 2 ½ feet, using a Hitachi.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have no intention to increase the depth of the property and that they will maintain the depth as it stands today.
6. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that Exts.P5 and P6 reports were not at all taken into consideration while issuing the same. In Exts.P5 and P6 it is reported that strengthening of the mud boundary wall will not affect the cultivation in the nearby paddy filed. The petitioners also rely on the judgment of this Court in Wonderla Holidays Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others [2021 (5) KHC 754] wherein it is held that there is no prohibition for doing fish farming in paddy field, if it is done without changing the ecological nature of paddy land. Admittedly, going by the reports, no agricultural activities could be undertaken in the subject properties and no harm is caused to the cultivation in the nearby paddy fields. Therefore, I am 2026:KER:20206 W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020 :7: of the view that the petitioners could be permitted to conduct fish farming there, for which strengthening of the mud boundary wall is absolutely necessary. Therefore, Ext.P9 is set aside, with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioners to strengthen the outer mud boundary wall as requested in Ext.P4. The submission of the petitioners that they will not further increase the depth of the properties and the activities to be undertaken by them in the subject property will not cause any harm to the cultivation in the nearby by paddy field, is recorded. The 2nd respondent will be free to impose any conditions while granting permission to strengthen the outer mud bund of the properties, so that no harm is caused to the cultivation in the nearby paddy fields. The 5th respondent shall ensure that the conditions attached to the order granting permission by the 2 nd respondent is duly complied with. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ 2026:KER:20206 W.P.(C). No.23906 of 2020 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23906 OF 2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 21.01.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 26.03.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHASILDAR DATED 8.5.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 11.03.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2020 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2020 IN WPC NO.3987/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1632/2019 DATED 22.09.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.10.2022 ISSUED BY KANNAMCHAL PADDY GROWERS SAMITHI BEARING REG NO.A31/91 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS BY ONE MR.GOPINATHAN PILLAI DATED 28.10.2020 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS BY ONE SREEKUMAR.K., DATED 28.10.2020