High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-09-14Writ petition dismissed; liberty to respondents...

Prasanth Bhattathiri v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.5909/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-09-14
Court Decision / Holding: 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.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; liberty to respondents 2 to 10 to take action if statutory violations are noted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prasanth Bhattathiri

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Collector, Alappuzha
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur
Tahsildar, Karthikappally
Village Officer, Keerikkad
Agricultural Officer, Keerikkad
Director, Fisheries Department, District Office, Alappuzha
Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, District Office, Alappuzha
Pathiyoor Grama Panchayath
Secretary, Pathiyoor Grama Panchayath
James Mathew, Madathipparambil, Keerikad P.O., Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)
• Manu Srinath
• Nimesh Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sergi Joseph
• N. V. Vinay
• Arun P.
• Antony Renjit George (K/696/1999)
• Smt. Reshmi K.M., Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case arises from a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.5909/2023) filed by Prasanth Bhattathiri, a co-owner of padasekharam land in Keerikkad, Alappuzha, challenging the inaction of state authorities against the 11th respondent, who allegedly seeks to reclaim padasekharam land. The petitioner alleges that the 11th respondent is digging earth to a depth of 10–15 metres and constructing an unauthorized bund on land that forms part of a larger padasekharam, thereby threatening irreparable loss to the petitioner's land and to the padasekharam as a whole. He claims that this reclamation violates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules thereunder. Despite complaints to the Grama Panchayat Secretary (10th respondent), Village Officers (5th and 6th respondents), Tahsildar, RDO and District Collector, no effective remedial action was taken. The petitioner contends that the 5th and 6th respondents were duty-bound to intervene and prevent reclamation. The 11th respondent counters that he sought to cultivate paddy but topsoil removal rendered cultivation unsuitable; Fisheries Department permission in 2020 allegedly authorizes pisciculture, an intermediary crop that could enhance land fertility. The court cites Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha to acknowledge permissible intermediary-crop activity in padasekharam and ultimately dismisses the petition, while clarifying that authorities may act if statutory violations are found.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he and co-owners hold padasekharam land in Survey No.79/4-2, Block 20 at Keerikkad, Alappuzha, and that the 11th respondent has adopted dubious methods to reclaim paddy land by digging earth to a depth of 10–15 metres and constructing a 15‑feet wide bund. He asserts that the land is part of a larger padasekharam and that such reclamation violates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules thereunder. Inaction by respondents 1 to 10—state, district authorities, and local offices—has allowed reclamation, causing irreparable damage. Complaints to the Grama Panchayat Secretary, Village Officers, Tahsildar, RDO, and District Collector were ignored or inadequately addressed, with the 5th and 6th respondents allegedly failing to intervene. The 11th respondent defends his activity as permissible pisciculture, supported by Fisheries Department permission in 2020, and presents aquaculture as an intermediary crop to restore field fertility. The petitioner relies on the Kerala Act and precedents to argue against reclamation, while urging the court to enforce protections for padasekharam and halt unlawful works.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that pisciculture is a permissible intermediary crop in a paddy land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They point to advice from the Agricultural Officer that aquaculture could enhance land fertility and to Fisheries Department permission in 2020 for pisciculture. The Village Officer’s report indicates no objection from the Fisheries Department, and a stop memo was issued. The 3rd and 2nd respondents argue they are not obliged to intervene unless statutory violations are shown and rely on Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha to support the permissibility of intermediary-crop activity. They assert there is no demonstrated violation of law, and that the petition is misconceived. They request dismissal of the writ petition, asserting that the petition should be decided only on whether statutory requirements are satisfied and on whether reclamation is established; in their view, the evidence suggests permissible activity rather than unlawful reclamation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha	2021 (5) KLT 737	Positive	Cited as authority recognizing permissible pisciculture as an intermediary crop in padasekharam under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and used to support the court’s conclusion that the 11th respondent’s pisciculture activity does not automatically constitute reclamation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prasanth Bhattathiri v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] 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:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001** - **2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001** - **3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689121** - **4 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690516** - **5 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KEERIKKAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502** - **6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KEERIKKAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502** - **7 DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001** W.P.(C) No.5909/2023 : 2 : - **8 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001** - **9 PATHIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **10 SECRETARY, PATHIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508** - **11 JAMES MATHEW, MADATHIPARAMBIL, KEERIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690508** **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 14[th] 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 11[th] respondent who is attempting to cause damage and irreparable loss to a padasekharam. 2. The petitioner states that he is co-owner of the land situated in Survey No.79/4-2 of Block No.20 at Keerikkad Village of Karthikappally Taluk in Alappuzha District. The said land is part of a padasekharam. The 11[th] respondent, who is owner of land, situated in Survey Nos.65 and 64 of Block No.20, which land is also a part of padasekharam, has adopted dubious methods to reclaim paddy land. W.P.(C) No.5909/2023 : 4 : 3. The petitioner alleges that the 11[th] respondent is digging up and removing ordinary earth upto a depth of 10-15 metres from his paddy land and he has constructed bunds unauthorisedly. The petitioner preferred complaint to the 10 respondent-Secretary to Grama Panchayat. The Secretary issued a stop memo to the 11[th] respondent. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the 5[th] respondent-Village Officer also. However, respondents 5 and 6 have not intervened in the matter. Complaints were filed before the Tahsildar, RDO and District Collector which were also not attended to. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the activity conducted by the 11[th] respondent in the paddy land owned by him amounts to reclamation as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The 5[th] respondent is bound to prevent such reclamation of paddy land. The 11[th] respondent is constructing a 15 feet wide bund which is illegal and impermissible. The 3[rd] W.P.(C) No.5909/2023 : 5 : respondent-RDO and the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector are duty bound to interfere in the matter, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The 11[th] respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 11[th] respondent submitted that he wanted to conduct paddy cultivation in his land and approached the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer informed the 11[th] respondent that since top soil has been removed from the field and was not used for a long period, paddy cultivation will not be advisable at this stage. The Agricultural Officer informed the petitioner that the field is suitable for aquaculture/fish farming as an intermediary crop. It would increase the fertility of the land, making the land fit for paddy cultivation again. 6. Therefore, the 11[th] respondent obtained permission from Fisheries Department in the year 2020 to start pisciculture in the field. The heavy rains and trespass into the fields caused serious damage to fish farming. In the year 2022, the petitioner again sought advice of the Fisheries 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 11[th] respondent. 7. The Government Pleader made available a copy of the report dated 28.03.2023 of the Village Officer, Keerikkad. The said report would disclose that the petitioner has obtained no objection from the Fisheries Deputy Director for conduct of aqua farming. The petitioner has also submitted an application to the RDO on 10.02.2023. A stop memo has been issued to the 11[th] respondent. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 8, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10 and the learned counsel for the 11[th] respondent. 9. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 11[th] respondent is reclaiming paddy land owned by him. According to the petitioner, the land owned by the 11[th] W.P.(C) No.5909/2023 : 7 : respondent is part of a larger padasekharam and the reclamation carried out by the 11[th] 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. 10. The defence of the 11[th] respondent is that he has contacted the Agricultural Officer who has advised in the year 2021 that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation as of then and fish farming / aquaculture in the field would make the paddy field fertile for agriculture in due course. The memo filed by the Government Pleader and the report of the Village Officer produced along with the memo would show that the petitioner has obtained no objection from the Fisheries Department. The petitioner has also submitted application to the RDO in this regard. 11. In _**Wonderla Holidays v. RDO, Muvattupuzha** [2021 (5) KLT 737]_ , this Court held that fish farming is 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 11[th] 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 11[th] 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 11[th] 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 RESPONDENTAGRICULTURAL 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 OF TAX RECIEPT NO.KL04041000632/2023 EXHIBIT R11(B) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECIEPT NO.KL04041000633/2023 EXHIBIT R11(C) SALE DEED NO.2181/2012 OF KAREELAKULANGARA SRO DATED 17.12.2012 EXHIBIT R11(D) PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONERS HENCMEN ENTERING INTO 11ST RESPONDENTS PROPERTY TO DESTRUCT PISCICULTURE FARMING AND PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE FLEX PUBLISHED TO DEFAME THE 11TH RESPONDENT** W.P.(C) No.5909/2023 ## : 11 : |**EXHIBIT R11(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY**| |---|---| ||**THE PETITIONER TO THE FISHERIES**| ||**MININSTER SHRI SAJI CHERIYAN DATED**| ||**15.02.2023**| |**EXHIBIT R11(F)**|**TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED**| ||**07/03/2023 FILED BY THE 11TH**| ||**RESPONDENT BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF**| ||**POLICE ALAPPUZHA**| |**EXHIBIT R11(G)**|**TRUE COPY OF RECIEPT ISSUED FROM**| ||**SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA**| ||**DATED 07/03/2023**| |**EXHIBIT R11(H)**|**TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**07/03/2023 MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT R11(I)**|**TRUE COPY OF RECIEPT ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**07/03/2023**|