Everest P. A vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9728 Ker

Kerala High Court

Everest P. A vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2025

                                                    ​2025:KER:76820​
                                    ​1​
​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
              ​

                                PRESENT​
                                ​

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
        ​

                 TH​
                 ​
WEDNESDAY, THE 15​
​                    DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA,​​
                     ​                                  1947​

                          WP(C) NO. 947 OF 2021​
                          ​

PETITIONER:​
​

                ​VEREST P. A.,​
                E
                PAVANA HOUSE, CHITTEKADAVU, THEKKUMBHAGOM,​
                ​
                THRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI - 682 301.​
                ​


                BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN​
                ​

RESPONDENTS:​

​

1​ ​ ​TATE OF KERALA,​ S REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,​ ​ SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.​ ​

2​ ​ ​HE VILLAGE OFFICER,​ T THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, THRIPPUNITHURA - 682 301.​ ​

ADV. NEEMA T V, SR. GP.​ ​

​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ PETITION​ ​ (CIVIL)​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ HEARING​ ​ ​ ON​ ​ 15.10.2025,​ ​ THE​ ​ COURT​ ​ ON​ ​ THE​ ​ SAME​ ​ DAY​ ​ DELIVERED​ THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2025:KER:76820​ ​2​ ​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​

​J U D G M E N T​

​The​ ​petitioner,​ ​a​ ​senior​ ​citizen,​ ​claims​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​absolute​ ​owner​ ​in​ ​title​ ​and​

​possession​ ​of​​10​​acres​​of​​land​​situated​​in​​Old​​Survey​​Nos.​​550,​​548/1,​​545/3,​​549/1​

​and​​Re-survey​​Nos.​​446/1​​and​​441/2​​of​​Thekkumbhagam​​Village.​​He​​asserts​​that​​he​

​has​ ​been​ ​continuously​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​various​ ​agricultural​ ​activities,​ ​including​ ​paddy​

​cultivation​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​shrimp​ ​and​ ​fish​ ​farming,​ ​since​ ​1995.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​has​

​approached​​this​​Court,​​being​​aggrieved​​by​​Ext.​​P1​​order​​issued​​by​​the​​Village​​Officer​

​on​​17.08.2020,​​whereby​​he​​was​​prohibited​​from​​carrying​​out​​any​​activity​​in​​Block​​No.​

​441/2 of Thekkumbhagam Village, Kanayannur Taluk.​

​2.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​Ext.P1​ ​order​ ​is​ ​liable​​to​​be​​interfered​​with,​

​as​ ​it​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​without​ ​affording​ ​him​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​being​ ​heard.​ ​No​ ​reasons​

​have​ ​been​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​the​ ​order​ ​to​ ​indicate​ ​the​ ​circumstances​ ​that​ ​prompted​ ​the​

​Village​ ​Officer​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​such​ ​a​ ​prohibitory​​direction.​​The​​petitioner​​contends​​that,​​as​

​early​ ​as​ ​on​ ​15.09.2020,​ ​after​ ​the​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​stop​ ​memo,​ ​he​ ​had​ ​informed​​the​

​authorities​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​routine​ ​de-silting​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pond​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​its​

​depth​ ​and​ ​ecological​ ​balance.​ ​The​ ​accumulation​ ​of​ ​mud​​and​​slurry​​had​​reduced​​the​

​pond's​​depth,​​adversely​​affecting​​his​​cultivation​​activities.​​He​​further​​relies​​on​​Ext.​​P2​

​Circular​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Collectorate,​ ​Palakkad,​ ​which​ ​clarifies​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​

​prohibition​​against​​digging​​or​​widening​​a​​pond,​​provided​​the​​mud​​and​​slurry​​removed​ ​2025:KER:76820​ ​3​ ​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​

​are​ ​utilised​ ​for​ ​strengthening​ ​bunds.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​specifically​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​

​de-silting​​activity​​was​​undertaken​​solely​​to​​prepare​​the​​land​​for​​paddy​​as​​well​​as​​fish​

​and​ ​shrimp​ ​cultivation,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​permissible​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​Land​​Utilisation​​Order,​

​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​amount​​to​​any​​violation​​of​​the​​Kerala​​Conservation​​of​​Paddy​​Land​​and​

​Wetland​​Act,​​2008.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​petitioner​​also​​places​​reliance​​on​​the​

​judgment​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​​in​​Mariadas​​C.B.​​v.​​State​​of​​Kerala​​and​​Ors.​​1​​,​​wherein​​it​

​was​​held​​that​​strengthening​​bunds​​around​​paddy​​fields​​and​​removal​​of​​slurry​​or​​mud​

​would not amount to conversion of paddy land.​

​3.​ ​A​ ​counter-affidavit​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​respondent.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​

​therein​​that​​upon​​site​​inspection,​​it​​was​​revealed​​that​​the​​petitioner​​had​​attempted​​to​

​dig​​and​​fill​​up​​the​​land.​​It​​was​​in​​such​​circumstances​​that​​a​​stop​​memo​​was​​issued​​in​

​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​Conservation​ ​of​ ​Paddy​ ​Land​ ​and​ ​Wetland​​Act,​

​2008.​ ​The​ ​counter​ ​further​ ​states​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​both​ ​the​ ​re-survey​ ​and​ ​old​ ​survey​

​records​​and​​the​​data​​bank,​​the​​petitioner's​​land​​is​​classified​​as​​"Nilam"​​and​​has​​been​

​under​​paddy​​cultivation​​for​​several​​years.​​It​​is​​also​​alleged​​that​​the​​soil​​removed​​from​

​the​​pond​​was​​deposited​​in​​a​​nearby​​stream,​​leading​​to​​waterlogging​​in​​the​​adjoining​

​areas.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​Ext.​ ​P1​ ​stop​ ​memo​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​on​ ​17.08.2020.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​stated​

​that​ ​the​ ​letter​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​a​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​which​ ​is​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​Ext.P2​ ​has​

​1​ ​2020 (5) KHC 611​ ​2025:KER:76820​ ​4​ ​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​

​been misplaced.​

​4.​ ​In​ ​reply,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​has​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​rejoinder​ ​affidavit​ ​denying​ ​the​

​averments​ ​in​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​and​​reiterating​​that​​he​​was​​not​​attempting​​any​​conversion​

​of​​land.​​He​​asserts​​that​​his​​activity​​was​​limited​​to​​deepening​​and​​de-silting​​the​​pond​

​by removing accumulated mud and slurry to facilitate shrimp and fish cultivation.​

​5.​ ​I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.​

​6.​ ​It​​is​​evident​​that​​Ext.​​P1​​order​​dated​​17.08.2020​​was​​issued​​prohibiting​

​any​ ​conversion​ ​of​ ​land.​ ​The​ ​petitioner's​ ​specific​ ​case​ ​is​ ​that​ ​he​ ​is​ ​the​ ​owner​ ​of​

​approximately​ ​10​ ​acres​ ​of​ ​land,​ ​wherein​ ​he​ ​has​ ​been​​carrying​​out​​paddy​​cultivation​

​and​​shrimp/fish​​farming.​​His​​contention​​is​​that​​the​​activities​​undertaken​​were​​merely​

​preparatory​​works,​​incidental​​to​​aquaculture​​and​​agricultural​​use,​​and​​did​​not​​amount​

​to​ ​conversion​ ​of​ ​land.​ ​This​ ​Court,​ ​in​ ​Mariadas​ ​C.B.​ ​(supra),​ ​has​ ​categorically​ ​held​

​that​ ​deepening​ ​of​ ​ponds​ ​and​ ​removal​ ​of​ ​silt​ ​do​ ​not​​constitute​​conversion​​under​​the​

​Kerala​​Conservation​​of​​Paddy​​Land​​and​​Wetland​​Act,​​2008.​​It​​is​​further​​seen​​from​​the​

​counter​ ​affidavit​ ​that​ ​no​ ​reply​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P4​

​representation​​submitted​​by​​the​​petitioner.​​The​​petitioner​​has​​also​​undertaken​​in​​the​

​Writ​​Petition​​that​​he​​has​​no​​intention​​to​​convert​​the​​land​​and​​that​​his​​sole​​objective​​is​

​to​​continue​​agricultural​​activities​​after​​de-silting​​and​​removing​​the​​accumulated​​slurry​ ​2025:KER:76820​ ​5​ ​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​

​from​​the​​pond​​to​​maintain​​its​​ecological​​balance.​​Although​​it​​is​​alleged​​in​​the​​counter​

​affidavit​​that​​the​​petitioner​​had​​deposited​​the​​excavated​​earth​​in​​a​​nearby​​stream,​​no​

​such allegation finds mention in Ext.P1 order.​

​7.​ ​Having​​regard​​to​​the​​submissions​​advanced,​​in​​view​​of​​the​​provisions​​of​

​the​ ​Act​ ​based​ ​on​ ​which​ ​prohibitory​ ​order​ ​was​​issued,​​and​​the​​precedent​​referred​​to​

​above,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​Ext.P1​ ​order​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​sustained.​

​Accordingly, Ext.P1 is quashed.​

​8.​ ​It​ ​is,​ ​however,​ ​made​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​effect​ ​any​

​conversion​​of​​land​​and​​shall​​utilise​​the​​property​​strictly​​in​​accordance​​with​​the​​Kerala​

​Conservation​ ​of​ ​Paddy​ ​Land​ ​and​​Wetland​​Act,​​2008.​​In​​the​​event​​of​​any​​violation,​​it​

​shall​ ​be​ ​open​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​an​ ​inspection​ ​and​ ​take​ ​appropriate​

​action in accordance with law.​

​Sd/-​

​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​ ​APM​ ​2025:KER:76820​ ​6​ ​WP(C) No. 947 of 2021​

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 947/2021​ ​

PETITIONER EXHIBITS​ ​

​XHIBIT P1​ E ​RDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY)​ O EXHIBIT P2​ ​ CIRCULAR​ ​ ​ ISSUED​ ​BY​ ​DISTRICT​ ​COLLECTOR,​ PALAKKAD (TRUE COPY).​ ​ EXHIBIT P3​ ​ ORDER​ ​ ​ ISSUED​ ​BY​ ​ SECY,​ ​MARANCHERRY​ ​ GRAMA​ PANCHAYAT (TRUE COPY).​ ​ EXHIBIT P4​ ​ PETITIONER'S REPLY TO EXT. P1 (TRUE COPY).​ ​