The court established that fish farming can be permitted without ecological disruption if supported by adequate reports.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P9 order of the 2^nd respondent and also seeking other consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioners are the owners in possession and enjoyment of 1 hector, 45 ares and 45 Square Meters of property comprised in Re-survey Nos. 638/3, 638/4, 638/5, 638/6, 638/7, 638/8, 638/9, 638/10, 638/11, 639/3, 639/4, 639/5 of Vallikunnam Village, Mavelikara Taluk, Alapuzha District, which is purchased by them as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioners submit that in the above said properties, there is a huge pond extending to more than 3.5 Acres which is formed due to excavation of clay and they have purchased the above properties with a view to conduct fish farming activity. Ext.P3 is the certificate of registration issued to the petitioners for conducting fish farming by the Fisheries Department. The petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent and application seeking permission to strengthen the mud boundary walls of the pond for the purpose of starting the fish farming.

Thereupon reports were called for from the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar and 4th respondent Village Officer, which are produced as Exts.P5 and P6. In the said reports it is stated that no ecological imbalance will be caused, if the fish farming is permitted and will not cause any hindrance to the natural water flows to the neighbouring properties. It was further reported that permission for strengthening the mud boundary walls of the pond can be permitted, without causing any room for excavation of soil. Without considering Exts.P5 and P6 reports, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P7 on the sole ground that the subject properties are included in the data bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court filing W.P. (C)No.3987 of 2020, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment, setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application, taking into consideration Exts.P5 and P6 reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Village Officer respectively. Without considering any of these aspects as directed in Ext.P8 judgment, the application has been rejected again as per Ext.P9, holding that the properties are included in the data bank and if permission is granted, it will result in shortage of water for agricultural purpose.

3. The petitioners submit that there is total non application of mind by the 2^nd respondent while issuing Ext.P9 and that Exts.P5 and P6 reports were not taken into consideration in a proper manner. The petitioners would submit that after rejecting the application as per Ext.P9 order, they have obtained a letter from the Kannamchal Paddy Growers Samithi, which is produced as Ext.P10, giving their absolute concurrence for fish farming and strengthening of mud boundary wall in the said properties. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P11 certificate issued by the Village Officer, wherein it is stated that the conduct of fish farming by the petitioners will not adversely affect cultivation in the neighbouring paddy fields, provided that the same is carried out without making any change to the existing lie of the property. The petitioners have also produced Exts.P12 and P13 affidavits submitted by the neighbouring property owners expressing their no objection in strengthening the mud wall of the subject properties for the purpose of conducting fish farming.

4. The learned Government Pleader, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer dated 23.03.2021, which is produced along with a memo dated 25.03.2021, submits that the subject properties are located near to cultivating paddy fields and if the activities sought for by the petitioner is permitted, it will affect cultivation in the nearby paddy field. T