Reclamation of paddy land without authorization constitutes an offense under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

O R D E R

The accused in S.T.No.1380/2019 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against her in the aforesaid case. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3 (1) read with Section 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008(in short, ‘Act’).

2. The proceedings were initiated before the learned Magistrate upon a complaint filed by the Village Officer, Ayilur, alleging that the petitioner, in violation of the stop memo issued by the Village Officer, proceeded with unauthorised construction of a temporary building in the paddy land which was reclaimed by her husband.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that she is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against her. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Agricultural Officer, Ayilur, had permitted the construction of a drying yard vide Annexure-E order passed by the said authority consequent to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.10692/2012 filed by the husband of the petitioner, and hence no criminal prosecution as initiated in this case would lie against her. The contention of the petitioner in the above regard is totally unacceptable, since neither the Agricultural Officer nor any other authority had permitted the petitioner to reclaim paddy land and to construct building there. Even in Annexure-E order of the Agricultural Officer, what has been permitted is the setting up of a drying yard as per the specifications of the Kerala State Seed Development Authority, without causing any damage to the existence of the paddy field. The aforesaid permission was granted consequent to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.10692/2012 on 31.07.2012, directing the Agricultural Officer to consider and take appropriate decision on an application filed by the husband of the petitioner seeking permission to set up a drying yard near to his paddy field. Even in the aforesaid judgment this Court has made it clear that the object and purpose of the Act is to prevent reclamation of paddy and wetland, and that promotion of paddy cultivation and allied matters should get proper attention. As far as the present case is concerned, the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner several years after Annexure-E order when she allegedly continued building construction in a paddy field unauthorisedly reclaimed ignoring the notice issued by the Village Officer on 02.08.2019, directing her to stop such activities. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that, by Annexure-E order she was entitled to reclaim paddy land and to make building construction there. The petitioner is liable for criminal prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act, if it is found that she had acted beyond the scope of Annexure-E order which permitted only the setting up of a drying yard without causing any obstruction to the existing paddy field. In that view of the matter, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, is totally unacceptable.

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(sd/-)