Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1184
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
JAMES – Appellant
Versus
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 4180/2016
The court reinforced the necessity of classifying land under the Kerala Act, prioritizing accurate surveys for appropriate use of waterlogged areas.
Headnote:
Conservation - Land Rights - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 - Sections involving land classification and reclamation. The Court interpreted the provisions of the Act to address the classification of waterlogged areas and their future use, ultimately favoring the petitioner’s request for survey and classification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed rights over 14 acres of land affected by mining operations, resulting in waterlogging. A commission report confirmed a large portion remained uncultivable, and the petitioner sought a survey and classification of the land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the commission’s report substantiated the petitioner’s claims regarding the uncultivable state of the land and ordered a survey to classify the land appropriately according to the Act, emphasizing the nature of the land as waterlogged.
Issues: Whether the land should be classified as wetland under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and the procedural implications of such classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the importance of proper classification under the Act, highlighting the necessity for a survey to determine the land's status and usage rights, while allowing the petitioner’s potential activity of fish farming.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed and directed the respondents to conduct a survey promptly.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is concerned with 14 Acres of land, wherein there was earlier in existence paddy lands, as is the description in the revenue records, even now. There was a tile factory in existence in the property the operation of which, involved large scale mining of earth; which resulted in the land being rendered un-cultivable for reason of it being converted into a water logged area, is the contention. This is also said to be long prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 (for brevity, Act of 2008).
2. As of now, the petitioner contends that almost
11.9734 Acres of land is lying waterlogged and about 1.7534 Acres has been reclaimed prior to 2008. The petitioner also had taken out an Advocate-Commission, who has filed report dated 14.04.2016, producing the sketch and photographs as also showing the reclaimed property as well as the waterlogged areas. The petitioner's contentions are substantially found to be correct as per the Commission Report.
3. The official respondents have filed an objection to the Commission Report, which points out certain clarifications as available in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which are extracted hereunder:-
2. It is submitted that petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.72 Acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 66, 68,93,94,96,101,102,111,112,113 and 82,82/1,83, 84 and 85 of Parathissery village, Thrissur District. All the Survey numbers mentioned above, except Sy.No.80, are included in the draft data bank prepared as per Act 28 of 2008. The Advocate Commissioner has produced photographs of the property and coloured sketch along with the commission report as Annexure-2. It is submitted that a portion of the land marked with pink colour in annexure-2 sketch is a reclamation land before commencing Act 28 of 2008. The Village officer informed that a small area in the above said land is a puramboke land as per revenue records. A portion of the land which is marked with orange colour is also a reclaimed land before to the commencement of Act 28 of 2008. A portion of land which is marked with green colour is a paddy land suitable for paddy cultivation. A portion of land which is marked as blue colour is a water logged area with pits and which is a 'wet land' as defined in Act 28 of 2008.
3. A portion of land which is marked with brown colour is also a 'marshy land' and it is suitable for paddy cultivation which is a paddy land as defined in Act 28 of 2008. A Canal is also passing through the boundary of the above said property and there is continuous supply of water through the said canal.
4. The Village Officer who is also a member of the Local Level Monitoring Committee has already sent a request to Ttahsildar for measuring and demarcating the puramboke land which included in the portion of land which is marked with pink colour.
4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner does not intend to fill up the area nor is the petitioner attempting reclamation. The waterlogged areas have to remain as such and the conversion of the same to a paddy land is down right impossible and is not a feasible exercise, is the petitioner's contention.
5. As has been stated in the objection, of the official respondents, it has to be treated as a wet land as contemplated in the Act of 2008. The petitioner contends that the petitioner would only undertake fish farming in the said area in accordance with Ext.P2 report. If the same is permissible, necessarily, the petitioner could do that, but this Court would not make any observations on that. Suffice it to say that going by the objection to the Commission report filed on behalf of the official respondents, the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Secretary of which is the Agricultural Officer, on being intimated about the measurement and demarcation; which is to be conducted by the Tahsildar, would make necessary changes in the Data
