JOSEPH PETER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the complaint in C.C. No.777/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Muvattupuzha filed by the Village Officer under Sec. 12(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The complainant alleges that the accused, who was the owner of an extent of 33.58 ares of land in Survey No.511/4A of Marady Village, had illegally reclaimed a paddy land by constructing a pond for fish cultivation and planted coconut saplings after building a compound wall using granite rocks. It is also alleged that the aforesaid activities were carried out without any permission and contrary to the prohibitory orders and since the land is included in the draft data bank prepared, the accused has committed the offence under Sec. 23 of the Act.

(3.) Sri. Manoj P. Kunjachan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the said allegations. According to the learned counsel, though the subject property is described as 'paddy' in the Basic Tax Register as well as in the data bank since paddy cultivation was not possible, he had obtained an Aquaculture licence from the Deputy Director of Fisheries on 17/4/2019, as evidenced by Annexure A3 and he removed mud and slurry for that purpose. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid activity which led to stop memos and thereafter the complaint, is not contrary to law and hence the offence alleged is not made out. Relying upon the decision in Wonderla Holidays Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and Others [2021 (5) KHC 754] it was argued that the removal of mud and slurry for strengthening a bund for the purpose of carrying cultivation will not amount to a violation of the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the actions alleged to have been indulged in by the petitioner, would not amount to any offence under the provisions of the Act and hence the prosecution is liable to be quashed.