Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36443
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SEBASTIAN JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, – Respondent
WP(C)/9770/2022
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA A.N.RAJAN BABU GP SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE
Rights to carry out agricultural activities must be balanced with environmental laws protecting wetlands to prevent ecological disturbance.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 2(1), 6 - The court highlighted issues concerning the right to conduct agricultural activities while protecting environmental laws regarding wetlands, emphasizing the need to balance property rights and environmental protection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought permission for laying a pipe across a Panchayat road, which faced opposition from local residents citing concerns of waterlogging and violation of environmental laws relating to wetlands. The petitioners had obtained necessary permissions from local authorities for their intended agricultural activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the petitioners possessed the requisite permissions, any activities should not obstruct water flow crucial for local residents. The court emphasized that any allegations regarding violations of environmental laws should be directed to the appropriate authorities for resolution.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' actions were obstructed based on alleged violations of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, and whether they are entitled to carry out their permitted activities without obstruction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the petitioners had valid permissions to carry out their tasks, the execution of these should not interfere with the ecological balance or rights of other property owners in the area.
Final Decision: The petitioners are entitled to execute their activities to the extent permitted by the Grama Panchayat, without obstructing the flow of water.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioners to put up the pipe as consented by the Aroor Panchayat by Exhibit P4 across and under the Veluthulli Panchayat Road.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioners averting the illegal activities of respondents 3 to 8 in taking away the fish crops from the petitioners'
property (69 Are covered by Exhibit P2).”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the co-owner of
207.97 Ares of property in Survey Nos.255 and 387 of Aroor Village. It is stated that the 1st petitioner and five co-owners are paying basic tax in respect of the properties as evident from Exhibit P1. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner had been granted Exhibit P2 permission for conducting a shrimp farm. The 2nd petitioner, with permission of the co-owners of the property, had obtained Exhibit P3 permission from the Grama Panchayat for putting up a pipe beneath the Panchayat road which passes through the property of the 1st petitioner and the co-owners. It is submitted that the party respondents are obstructing the laying of the said pipe on the ground that it will lead to water logging in their properties which, according to the petitioners, are not in the immediate vicinity. It is contended that Exhibit P4 complaint submitted by the petitioners did not evoke any response.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 3 to 8. It is contended that the activity carried out by the petitioners involve violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is submitted that in the guise of strengthening of the bund of the property for shrimp cultivation, what is being done by the petitioners is illegal reclamation of the wetland, far in excess of what is necessary for strengthening of the bund. It is also contended that the 2nd petitioner has no property in the area and that the permission granted to the 2nd petitioner by Exhibit P3 by the Grama Panchayat is therefore, not liable to be acted upon. It is further contended that the respondents are residents of Veluthully Velaparava Colony Lands and that the 4th respondent is a former Block Panchayat Member and a Panchayat Member of the Aroor Grama Panchayat. What was objected to by the respondents was the illegal reclamation of the wetlands and the blocking of the existing channel for the rain water from the colony being drained to the 'kayal' comprised in Survey No.255. There is an iron pipe erected under the Panchayat Road on the north of the 'kayal' and it is through this pipe that water is flowing to the 'kayal' on the northern side of the Panchayat Road comprised in Survey No.387. It is submitted that the present attempt of the petitioners is to shut down this channel through which the water is flowing from the colony and that it will definitely lead to water logging in the colony which is the reason why the activity of the petitioners had been objected to by the respondents. It is further contended that these aspects are evident from the reports submitted by the Village Officer and the Tahsildar. However, no steps had been taken on the complaints raised by the party respondents with regard to the violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 .
5. The learned Government Pleader has placed on record an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha dated 15.06.2022 of considering the reports submitted by the Village Officer and the Tahsildar. The Sub Divi
