IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 393 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5839/2011 DATED 08/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ OUSEPH JOSEPH,AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,VADASSERIL HOUSE,NEYYASSERY.P.O, KARIMANOOR,THODUPUZHA-685586. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA,IDUKKI,PIN-685603. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,KUYILIMALA,IDUKKI-685603. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,THODUPUZHA-685584. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE, NEYYASSERY,KARIMANOOR,THODUPUZHA-685586. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 393 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the stop memo issued by the Villager Officer against the appellant against reclaiming paddy land. The learned single Judge did not consider the merit of the case, but felt that the District Collector is the statutory authority under Act 28/2008 to decide the matter and District Collector was directed to decide the appellant's case after getting report from the RDO. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that if the appellant were to wait for the conclusion of the proceedings initiated by the District Collector, he will not be able to cultivate the land in this season. He has explained to us that what the appellant has done is to dig canals temporarily for flow of water in the paddy field where W.A.No.393/2011 2 plantain cultivation is already done. It is very common that paddy land is alternatively used in the summer season for cultivation of plantain and even for cultivation of tapioca. Water gets collected in the paddy land even on a single day's rain. Therefore normally farmers dig canals to drain out water or to collect water in the canals within the paddy field. This certainly cannot be called reclaiming activity or conversion of paddy land to garden land. In other words, manipulation of soil to suit the requirement of the crop cultivated cannot be called reclamation. So far as appellant does not bring the soil from outside and fill up paddy field, the work stated above cannot be said to be violation of Act 28 of 2008. We therefore dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the statutory authorities to keep in mind the case of the appellant stated above, verify whether the appellant's claim is right or whether there is any violation by him, and then decide the case on merits in accordance with statutory provisions. No adverse action should be taken or order passed without informing about the proposal and giving him opportunity to raise objection. We further direct the Tahsildar and the W.A.No.393/2011 3 statutory authorities to permit the appellant to carry out the above operations that is manipulation of soil in the paddy field by digging canal for drainage of water and allow him to continue cultivation of the land. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk