Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16247 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 15645 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SUKUMARAN,AGED 54 YEARS,S/O SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN,
          KODAVANPADATH HOUSE, PUNCHAPADAM, KUMBALAKKODE.P.O,
          PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
          P.S.SIDHARTHAN
          MAYA M.
          P.R.REENA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF
          REVENUE,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

    2     AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER/ PRINCIPAL
          SECRETARY,
          AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

    3     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, RERPESENTED BY ITS
          CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
          PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680587.

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE,PAZHAYANNUR,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680587.

    5     ADDL.R5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR (SUO MOTU
          IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.08.2021 IN WP(C)
          15645/2021)

          GP SRI.P.S.APPU


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15645 OF 2021
                                    2



                                 JUDGMENT

Alleging that activities are carried on in

violation of the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008(for

short, 'the Act'), respondents 3 and 4 issued Exts

P4 and P5 stop memos. It is aggrieved thereby that

the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, the work that

was being carried on by him in the property is,

erecting a small threshing yard where the paddy

harvested can be brought and dried, in order to

store it without it being damaged. It is only to

utilize the harvested paddy in the most beneficial

manner. There is no violation of any provisions of

the Act, contends the petitioner.

3. The nature of the work done, whether it is

purely auxiliary to the main purpose of paddy

cultivation and where there has been violation of

the provisions of the Act, are all matters to be WP(C) NO. 15645 OF 2021

considered by the additional 5 th respondent, the

authority constituted in terms of Section 13 of the

Act.

4. The Additional 5th respondent shall obtain

reports from respondents 3 and 4 and pass

appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner,

within three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE vdv WP(C) NO. 15645 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15645/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 3O/07/2021, THANDAPER NO.13082.

Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 30/07/2021,THANDAPER NO.13082.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 18.02.2021

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S MRI SCAN REPORT DATED 23.10.2018

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 13.04.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 20.07.2021.