PRAMOD MATHEW Vs. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order of the District Collector and Ext.P11 order of the Agricultural Production Commissioner affirming Ext.P.9 order, in revision.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they had purchased properties having an extent of 98.24 Ares comprised in Survey Nos.223/1 and 222/3 of Meloor Village as per Sale deed Nos.6537/12 and 6531/12 of the Chalakkudy SRO. They would submit that though the said property is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and in the Data Bank, Ext.P3 will show that the Data Bank itself describes the said property as not being suitable for Paddy cultivation. As it is evident from Exts.P4 and P5 photographs, the property contains age-old coconut trees and areca nut trees and the petitioners are also carrying out other agricultural activities in the said property. The genuineness of Exts.P4 and P5 photographs have not been disputed. Ext.P8 report of the 3rd respondent also suggests that though the land in question is described as Nilam in the revenue records, the land is being cultivated with other crops and that the coconut trees situated in the property are at least 25 years old. Despite the finding in Ext.P8 that the property is being cultivated with other crops and that there exist trees which are more than 25 years old, the Agricultural Officer recommended that further action be taken by the District Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). Following the recommendation of the 3rd respondent, the District Collector initiated proceedings and issued Ext.P9 order after hearing the parties requiring the petitioner to restore the land and make it suitable for paddy cultivation. This order was challenged in revision before the Agricultural Production Commissioner, who is also the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department and by Ext.P11 order he has affirmed the order passed by the District Collector.

(3.) A counter affidavit has placed on record on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating the facts of the case and reiterating that since the land is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, the petitioners cannot cultivate the said land with other crops in view of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the aforesaid Act.