Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 & P4 orders issued by the 3rd respondent permitting excavation of mud from property belonging to the 6th respondent. Allegation is that the property of the 6th respondent is paddy land situated in the middle of an extensive paddy cultivation field where is undertaken even now. It is contended that the 6th respondent was permitted to dig two ponds in the middle of the padasekharam, under the cover of Ext.P1 order of the 3rd respondent on the basis of an application made by him seeking permission projecting a requirement of starting fish farming. It is stated that the petitioner as well as other organisations have raised protest against Ext.P1 and submitted various complaints as per Exts.P2 & P3. But the 3rd respondent again passed Ext.P4 order permitting excavation of mud from the paddy field in question. According to the petitioner the permission granted is in violation of provisions contained in Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act under which there is a total prohibition under Section 3 against conversion or reclamation of land cultivated with paddy. It is pointed out that what is permitted under Section 3 is only cultivation of intermediary crops without changing ecological nature of the paddy land. Further it is pointed out that local level monitoring committee constituted under Section 7 had to verify whether any such act should be permitted or not. Therefore the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P1 & P4.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent it is mentioned that he had undergone training in fish cultivation from the Fisheries Department and the permission sought for is to dig 2 nursery ponds for starting fish cultivation. Exhibit P1 permission was granted on the basis of a report of inspection submitted by the additional Tahsildar. It is also contended that neighbouring land owners have already given consent for such activity. It is pointed out that Ext.P1 permission was granted by the 3rd respondent only after conducting personal inspection in the property. But the petitioner and other organisations have objected digging of the land on the basis of Ext.P1 order. It is contended that the petitioner is not a person interested in the subject matter and he is residing about 100 meters away from the periphery of the padasekharam. However, it is conceded that Ext.P1 order was stayed on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner and other organisations, by virtue of Ext.R6 (a) letter. With respect to Ext.P4 it is mentioned in the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent that, the 3rd respondent had conducted a detailed enquiry and various persons who had raised objections, including the petitioner, were heard in person. The 3rd respondent had also considered the consent granted by the general body of the 'padasekhara samithi' regarding fish cultivation as well as permission granted by the authorities of the Fisheries Directorate. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent had granted Ext.P4 permission after imposing stringent conditions with respect to digging of the nursery ponds. The 6th respondent points out that similar orders were granted to two other persons with respect to property situated in the very same locality, as per Exts.R6 (c) and Ext.R6 (d). According to the 6th respondent the proposed fish cultivation will come within the scope of intermediary crop permitted by virtue of sub section (2) of Section 3 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore there is no illegality in Ext.P4 order as alleged by the petitioner.
3. When the writ petition was moved on 19-08-2014, this court had issued an interim order directing to maintain status quo for a period of one month. Subsequently the interim order was extended periodically. It is noticed that, in the permission contained in Ext.P4 it was stipulated that the activity should be completed within the period from 08-08-2014 to 14-08-2014. As such the 6th respondent cannot be permitted to do any activity based on Ext.P1 or P4, at this point of time. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 had pointed out that the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 to grant permission in this regard.
Therefore Ext. P1 & P4 orders cannot be treated as orders issued under provisions of the Act by any competent authority. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent contended that since Ext.P4 order was issued after considering all aspects and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot challenge the same by approaching the District Collector.
4. However, noticing the fact that the period stipulated in Ext.P4 had expired, this writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the 6th respondent to seek appropriate permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. It is made clear that if any such approach is made by the 6th respondent before any competent authority, it will be left open to the petitioner to raise objections against such applications.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge