BY AD v. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

AGED 55 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, VEZHEKKADAN HOUSE, ANANDAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. *(ADDL R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.08.2018 IN I.A. NO.16520/17 AND I.A. NO.16660/17 RESPECTIVELY) BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR GP - RIYAL DEVASSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 2 : VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 ============================ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2024 J U D G M E N T The above writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext P5 stop memo and for other consequential reliefs.

2. It is contended that the petitioner is the owner of 2.02 acres of garden land in Sy.Nos. 167/1, 3 and 4 of Madayikonam Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District obtained as per Ext P1 deed. As evident from Ext P2 possession certificate, the property is a pucca garden land and further that the property is not included in Ext P3 data bank also. Originally a quarry was functioning in the property of the petitioner and due to stringent conditions imposed by the Government the petitioner discontinued the conduct of the quarry in the year 2012. Thereafter petitioner decided to construct a building in the said property for industrial purpose and submitted an application for the same before the Municipality and for commencement of the construction work the petitioner leveled the property using quarry waste. Thereupon she was issued with Ext P5 stop memo by the 2nd respondent.

3. Petitioner would contend that even in Ext P5 the 2nd respondent has admitted that the property of the petitioner is a WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 3 : garden land. The petitioner admit that there is water logging in the pit formed due to quarrying in about 50 cents of property and that the petitioner does not intend to fill the aforesaid pit. The construction is sought to be effected only in the balance property. The allegation in Ext P5 that the property is surrounded by paddy land is not fully correct. In between the paddy land and the petitioner’s property, the petitioner is having another 30 3\4 cents of property in Sy.No. 140/1 and 72 cents of property in Sy.Nos. 141/1 and 6 of Madayikonam Village. It is only thereafter that the paddy land begins. 25 acres of paddy land immediate to the petitioner’s property are owned and cultivated by the petitioner’s relative and they have no complaint in respect of the construction activity that are proposed to by carried out by the petitioner in her property.

4. In this case additional respondents 3 and 4 got impleaded and opposed the relief sought for in the writ petition mainly contending that the petitioner is attempting to fill the property in violation of the Rules. Though serious objections were raised by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition, it is to be noted that other three writ petitions were also filed of which WP(C) No. 13529 of 2018 is filed by additional 3rd respondent whereas WP(C) Nos. 801 of 2018 and 19362 of 2018 were filed by additional respondent 4 in the present writ petition. In all those writ WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 4 : petitions also the petitioner is a party and essentially the very same contentions are taken in these cases also. It is to be noted that all the other three writ petitions have been dismissed as not pressed by judgment dated 16.11.2023.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is admitted that the property covered by Ext P5 stop memo is not included in the draft data bank of 2008 and even as per the settlement register, BTR and other village records the land is classified as ‘parambu’. But it is stated therein that there is water logging in the area and is in continuation of the immediate boundary of the paddy land. When the petitioner tried to fill the land with soil and quarry waste, a mass petition signed by the local residents and also a complaint by one Suresh who is the additional 3rd respondent herein was filed and it is only on basis of the same that action was initiated as per Ext P5. It is also stated that the property is described as ‘parambu’ in the village records and is not included in the data bank. The property is actually a water logged area. Tahsildar (Land records), Mukundapuram by letter dated

08.09.2017 has addressed the 2nd respondent to report the nature of the property comprised in Sy.No. 167/1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of the incorporation of the same in the data bank as provided under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and that the 2nd respondent has wrote to the Agricultural Officer, WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 5 : Porathissery requesting to include the property in question in the data bank to be maintained as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and that further action on the part of Local Level Monitoring Committee is awaited.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed as early as in November 2017 and the learned Government Pleader has no instructions as to whether any further action has been taken by the Local Level Monitoring Committee in this regard. Admittedly the property is a ‘parambu’ in the village records. The property has not been included in the data bank also. This Court has held that, just for the reason that the property is water logged the property cannot be treated as paddy land. (See the judgments of this Court in Jessy Abraham Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, Trivandrum [2021(6) KHC 316] and in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another Vs. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94].) Even going by the case of the 2nd respondent Agricultural Officer the property is not included in the data bank and that the property is lying as a ‘parambu’ in the village records. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the issuance of Ext P5 order of stop memo is without any basis. Therefore, Ext P5 is set aside. It is made clear that the rights if any of the authorities under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 6 : Wetland Act, 2008 is not affected by the setting aside of Ext P5 stop memo. The writ petition is disposed of as above. VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE Sd/- sbk/- WP(C) No. 30553 of 2017 : 7 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30553/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(a) EXHIBIT R3(b) EXHIBIT R3(c) EXHIBIT R3(d) EXHIBIT R3(e) EXHIBIT R3(f) EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.334/2006 DATED 3.2.2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DATA BANK OF MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE AS CERTIFIED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PORATHISSERY. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.2322 OF 2017 DATED 7.7.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT AND PLAN IN ANNEXURE-I SUIT DATED 24.08.2017 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE IMPLEADING PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 17.07.2017. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAYIKONAM DATED 31.08.2017. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR IN CRL.MP NO. 597 OF 2017 DATED 30.08.2017. A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED DATED NIL. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)