MARIADAS C B Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Vypin. He states that he is an award winning agriculturist and he cultivates Pokkali rice during one half of the year and ventures into fish and shrimp farming during the next half. For carrying his agricultural activities, he took on lease property having an extent of 11.15 acres at Nayarambalam Village. Copy of the lease deed is produced as Exhibit P2.

(2.) The petitioner contends that, as an aftermath of the floods, which ravaged the State in the year 2018, the field, adjoining sluice pit and canals got filled with mud and slurry. Try as he might, it became impossible for him to carry out agricultural activities. He received advice that in order to make the land cultivable, he will have to strengthen the bunds around the paddy field and remove the slurry and mud. In the said circumstances, he ventured to secure the assistance of skilled personnel and an earthmover to carry out the work. However, when he commenced the work he was faced with serious resistance from respondents 8 and 9, who are leaders of the local union. Left with no alternative, he approached the 7th respondent and filed Ext.P5 request to visit his property and to render assistance. The 7th respondent, being the Agricultural Officer of the area visited the property and gave a recommendation that unless the salinity of the soil is managed, the yield would not improve. To manage the salinity, the petitioner had to remove the mud and slurry and strengthen the bund. Left with no alternative, Exhibit P6 and P6 (a) complaints were lodged by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, requesting him to intervene and permit the petitioner to carry out agricultural operations. However, no assistance was rendered. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 representation before the 5th respondent seeking intervention. When his request before the authorities did not yield any result, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

(3.) Sri. T.R.S Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Exts.P1 to P3 and it was argued that the petitioner s efforts have been recognised by the Department of Agriculture and he has been conferred with numerous awards. According to the learned counsel, pokkali rice is cultivated from June to early November when the salinity level of the water in the fields is low. From mid-November to mid-April, he takes to prawn farming as the salinity of the water is high. He points out that sluice gates are used to control the water flow to the fields and the pokkali rice, draws nutrients from the prawns excrement and other remnants. The unique feature of this cultivation is that no manure or fertilizer need to be applied and the pokkali rice seedlings grow in an organic way that too in only some of the districts in the State of Kerala. The pokkali rice is famed the world over and has medicinal properties. He would point out that the expertise gained by the petitioner in this field has been clearly mentioned in Ext.P3 information furnished by the Agricultural Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He would take pains to point out that it would not be economically viable to carry out pokkali rice cultivation without first removing the mud and slurry and thereby reducing the salinity. According to the learned counsel, the obstruction caused by the party respondents will only forestall farmers to take up pokkali rice cultivation and nothing more.