The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 2 Acres of property comprised in Survey Nos.60/1, 60/2 and 65 of Azheekode Village, Eriyad Panchayat in Thrissur District. 2. It is admitted that the property mentioned as above is included as wetland in the draft data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”).
3. The above property consists of eight manmade ponds for aquaculture and other improvements. However, in the data bank, this property is classified private pond. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that in the basic tax register, the total extent of four ponds in Survey No.65 is 1 Acre and 5 cents; the extent of one pond situated in Survey No.60/2 is 15 cents; so also the extent of two ponds in Survey No.60/1 is approximately 15 cents. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the manmade ponds can be treated as a wetland for the purpose of conservation of paddy land and wetland. The wetland is defined under S.2(xviii) of the Act as follows:
“wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers.”
A bare reading of the definition of “wetland” would indicate that wetland is a natural land lying between terrestrial and aquatic system. It will not bring into the fold, a pond dug in a dry land for the purpose of aquaculture.
4. In the counter itself it is stated that the property in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register. However, it is seen from Ext.P6 report of the Additional Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer that though the property in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register, it is converted long before the enactment of the Act and further that the land situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 is classified as purayidam in the basic tax register.
5. Therefore, I am of the view that the property situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 is purayidam and the petitioner is free to reclaim the land and undertake any other construction activities in accordance with law. The inclusion of the land in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 as wetland in the draft data bank is set aside. It is hereby declared that for all practical purposes, the property in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 is declared as purayidam.
6. The property situated in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register. Considering the fact that this property is reclaimed long ago before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, I am of the view that this property cannot also be included either as a paddy or as a wetland in the draft data bank. However, for the purpose of utilising the land in Survey No.65, petitioner requires permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order from the Collector. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall approach the Collector for permission to utilise the land for other purposes. If the land in Survey No.65 is lying contiguous to the land in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes along with the other land in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2. Therefore, if the petitioner approaches the District Collector, Thrissur under Clause 6 of the KLUO seeking permission to utilise the land situated in Survey No.65 for other purposes within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the application shall be considered in the light of the above within a further period of four weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms