Kerala High Court
Thomas Varghese vs The District Collector on 30 August, 2024
2024:KER:65992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 8TH BHADRA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 19905 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
THOMAS VARGHESE
AGED 62 YEARS
KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, THAZHAUVAMKUNNU
P.O., KALLORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.SREEDEV
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686 661.
3 TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM -
686 661.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLOORKADU,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686 668.
W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016
2024:KER:65992
-2-
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALLOORKADU, ERNAKULAM -
686 668.
6 JOHNY
KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, THAZHUVAMKUNNU
P.O., KALLORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
- 686 668.
7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KALLORKADU PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KALLOORKADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.P.P.STELLA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SONY K.B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016
2024:KER:65992
-3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2024 The petitioner, a farmer by profession, is stated to be cultivating fodder grass in his property. It is stated that the 6 th respondent herein, who has been cultivating the neighbouring property with paddy, filed a complaint against the petitioner contending that there is violation with respect to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. Pursuant to the notice at Ext.P1, Ext.P2 order dated 26.05.2016 was issued by the first respondent herein finding that the action of the petitioner in carrying on the cultivation of fodder grass, as also making of drain is creating obstruction in the right of the 6th respondent in carrying out the paddy cultivation, which is a violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to remove the drain W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -4- constructed by him and also to stop the cultivation of fodder grass. Later, the petitioner sought for a copy of the complaint filed by the 6th respondent herein on the basis of which the proceedings at Ext.P2 was issued. The petitioner was also served with a report referred to in Ext.P2 prepared by the 4 th respondent herein. Later, through Ext.P4 dated 03.06.2016, the directions in Ext.P2 was sought to be implemented.
2. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P4.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent on 07.09.2016. However, the same was noted as defective by the Registry and is not placed along with the files.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, this Court called for the said counter affidavit from the Registry and has perused the same. The defect noticed is with reference to the date of Ext.R6(d). The Registry is directed to W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -5- treat the said defect as cured and incorporate the counter affidavit along with the files.
5. In the said counter affidavit, the 6th respondent has produced various documents relating to the activity carried out by the petitioner herein, causing hindrances to the paddy cultivation carried on by the 6 th respondent. Therefore, the counter affidavit states that there is violation of the provisions of the Act.
6. I heard Sri.Sreedev, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.P.P.Stella, learned Counsel for the 6 th respondent as also Smt.Sony K.B, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and 7.
7. Sri.Sreedev, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings at Exts.P2 and P4 have been finalised without hearing the petitioner. He points out that though requested for, a copy of the complaint filed by the 6 th respondent, was not handed over to him. Sri.Sreedev also points out that there were various disputes including boundary W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -6- disputes between the petitioner and the 6 th respondent. Therefore, on account of the above enmity between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Sri.Sreedev further points out that under Section 2(iii) of the Act, it is not that every conversion is hit by the provisions of the statute. He refers to the provisions of Section 2(ix) of the Act to contend that even intermediary crops- short term crops can be cultivated in between two paddy cultivation periods. Counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in Wonderla Holidays Ltd v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha [2021 (5) KHC 754] and Joseph Peter v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 165], to conclude his arguments, by contending that the stand of the respondents with respect to the cultivation of fodder grass is not correct.
8. Per contra, Smt.Stella makes reference to the counter affidavit as also the Exhibits produced along with the W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -7- counter affidavit and contends that insofar as there is a positive finding by the Agricultural Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that the activity carried out by the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the paddy cultivators, the writ petition may be dismissed.
9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.
10. It is the admitted case that the petitioner herein is cultivating fodder grass in his property. The 6th respondent is cultivating paddy in the neigbhouring plot. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the provisions under Section 2(iii) r/w 2(ix), he is justified in cultivating fodder grass, which is only a short term crop and it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provisions of the statute. However, reference to Section 2(ix) would make it clear that it is only an intermediary crop, cultivated between two seasons according to the ecological nature of the paddy land, that is permitted. Here, there is a positive finding to the effect that on account of W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -8- the cultivation of fodder grass, there is blockage with respect to the flow of water from one paddy field to the other. Here, it is worthwhile to notice the finding in Ext.R6(c), wherein at column No.10, there is a specific finding to the effect that the activity carried on by the petitioner in cultivating fodder grass is affecting the paddy cultivation. In my view, this would definitely attract the embargo under Section 2(ix) insofar as there is a disturbance to the ecological nature of the paddy land. In that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated through Exts.P2 and P4 cannot be found fault with.
11. The reliance placed on a judgment of this Court in Wonderla Holidays Ltd (supra) is also not apposite, since this Court was not called upon to consider a situation like the one herein, wherein there is a disturbance to the ecological nature of the paddy land by virtue of the fodder grass cultivation. Similarly, the judgment in Joseph Peter (supra) cannot also apply to the case at hand, insofar as therein, W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -9- there is a positive finding that by virtue of the intermediary crop, if paddy cultivation becomes impossible, it cannot be said as a case of intermediary crop. Here, going by the findings in the report filed by the RDO, there cannot be any doubt that the activity carried on in cultivating fodder grass would definitely have an adverse effect in the paddy cultivation. The position would have been different, had there been no report to the above effect filed by the RDO.
In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings at Ext.P2 and P4.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.19905 of 2016 2024:KER:65992 -10- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19905/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
16.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
P5. 2 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER AND
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.