IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1210 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14164/2010 Dated 01/07/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. V.K.RAJEEV, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, VETTOOR HOUSE, ACHINAKAM, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MANJU, W/O.RAJEEV, VATTOOR HOUSE, ACHINAKAM, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1210 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 1st July, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.14164 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioners therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The facts leading to the litigation are as follows: The appellants claim to be the owners of agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.134/1B1/2 and 134/1A1 in Vechoor Village. The said pieces of property according to the appellants are lying contiguous to some Kolompurathukari Padasekharam. According to the appellants there is a bund separating the property of the appellants from the above mentioned padasekharam. The appellants also assert that they are carrying on the agricultural operations like growing tapioca, plantain, vegetables, etc. in the above mentioned piece of lands. As part of their agricultural operations the appellants believe that the strengthening of the existing bund referred to above is necessary. 3. Therefore, they seek to undertake appropriate activity to strengthen the existing bund referred to above. The appellants therefore filed an application dated 5.11.2009 before the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer seeking permission for strengthening the bund. 4. It is the case of the appellants that no such permission is required under any law, in view of Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Welt Land, 2008 which reads as follows: “3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land.- (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation or such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation.” The appellants apprehended that carrying on any activity in an agricultural land might attract some action by the authorities concerned with the implementation of the above mentioned Act. Therefore the permission was sought by way of abundant caution. 5. The appellants are clearly of the opinion and in our view rightly that the various restrictions and prohibitions contained in the above mentioned Act are not applicable to the activity of strengthening of outer bund for protecting the cultivation within any paddy land. The expression 'paddy land' itself is defined under Section 2(xii) of the said Act. Though there is an assertion in the instant case that the land in question is not paddy land, that is a question of fact which we do not propose to examine. We only take note of the provision under Section 3(2) of the Act that even if it is assumed that the land in question is a paddy land the activity of strengthening of bund is an activity which is not prohibited or regulated under the provisions of the said Act. 6. However, the third respondent issued a notice dated 19.12.2009. In the said notice it is stated that the third respondent noticed that the appellants have brought clay into the above mentioned property for the purpose of reclamation which is illegal. We are of the opinion that the notice issued by the third respondent is without any authority of law. 7. Apart from that in view of the application dated 5.11.2009 filed by the appellants an order came to be passed by the first respondent on 1.3.2010 rejecting the application of the appellants and challenging the same the appellants herein approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.14164 of 2010. 8. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have an effective alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 28 of the above mentioned Act. Apart from that the appellants also have a remedy by way of civil suit. Having regard to the nature of the dispute which essentially requires establishment of the basic facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the appellants to pursue such remedies as are available to them under law. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns