Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13079
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/7282/2021
SHRI.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT SMT.A.ARUNA (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER) SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Fish farming is allowed as an intermediary crop on paddy land under the Act, provided it does not change the land's ecological nature.
Headnote:
Conservation - Fish Farming - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act - Sections 2(ix), 3, 14 - The court held that fish farming is permissible as an intermediary crop without altering the paddy land's ecological nature; thus, the rejection of the permit was unjustified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of a permit to construct a motor shed for agricultural purposes on paddy land, contending that fish farming as an intermediary crop was permissible under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not violate the Act as fish farming could occur as an intermediary crop within the ecological confines of paddy land; the rejection of the permit was based on an improper interpretation of the law and unsubstantiated claims of violation.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the permit to construct a motor shed for fish farming on paddy land violated the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The construction of a motor shed for fish farming does not constitute conversion or reclamation under the Act, and intermediary crops like fish farming are allowed provided they do not alter the ecological state of the land.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection of the permit and directed its approval for construction of the motor shed if other statutory requirements are met.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2021 The petitioner, a Company, is before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P8 and P10 to the extent it has declared that the construction of ponds so as to facilitate fish farming is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to grant permission for erecting motor shed for agricultural purpose as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application.
2. In the year 2005, the petitioner purchased 50.20 Ares of property in Survey No.390/3-8 of Kizhakkambalam Village. The property is paddy land uncultivated for several years. The petitioner decided to start fish farming in the land as an intermediary crop. The land was accordingly made suitable for paddy cultivation and fish farming. The intention was intimated to the respondents as per Ext.P2 letter. The outer bunds were strengthened using mud and slurry available in the land. For paddy cultivation as well as for fish farming, the petitioner needs to install a water pump, for which a motor shed is to be constructed.
3. The Panchayat authorities required the petitioner to submit an application for Building Permit and accordingly, Ext.P4 application was made. The application was rejected as per Ext.P6 communication. The application was rejected on the premises that Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 restricts the local authority from granting any licence or permit for carrying out any activity in a paddy land or wetland converted or reclaimed in violation of the provisions of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner filed WPC No.10845/2020 and this Court set aside Ext.P6 and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration. The 4th respondent-
Convenor of LLMC gave Ext.P8 report to the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner has constructed ponds in the land for fish farming in violation of the Act, 2008. The 5th respondent stated that inspecting officials could not reach the spot and the report is based on information gathered during inspection. The 1st respondent-RDO issued Ext.P10 proceedings to the effect that he is not in a position to give necessary permission in view of the violations pointed out.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the violation alleged against the petitioner is strengthening the outer bund, which cannot be portrayed as violation, in view of the judgment of this Court inMariadas v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (6) KLT 49 ]. Section 3 (2) prohibits only conversion and reclamation of paddy land and in this case there is neither conversion nor reclamation. It is an admitted fact that no site inspection was conducted before arriving at Ext.P8 report. As there is no conversion or reclamation of paddy land involved, Section 14 of the Act, 2008 cannot be held against the petitioner.
6. The 5th respondent-Agricultural Officer filed a counter affidavit and contested the writ petition. The 5th respondent stated that fish farming can be done only between two seasons of paddy cultivation. The Deputy Director of Fisheries has opined that Oru Nellum Oru Meenum Scheme is not feasible in the paddy lands in Kizhakkambalam. The binaries of the petitioner to do paddy cultivation is doubtful. The LLMC has found that fish farming in the paddy land is impossible. Digging of paddy land will change the nature of the land. The structure proposed by the petitioner can only be erected after effecting permanent changes in the lie of the land. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that the land is included in Data Bank. Fishing is permitted in paddy land only as an intermediary crop. It can be done only between two paddy cultivation periods. If motor pump is used for discharging water from the field, it would contain all contamination which is used for the time bound growth of fish. Section 14 prohibits th
