SHAHID Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are husband and wife. Among them, the first petitioner owns 1.72 ares of land and the second petitioner owns 2.02 ares of land. The lands of the petitioners are lying contiguous. It is stated by the petitioners that their lands are shown as dry lands in the Basic Tax Register, and the same are not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008(the Act). The petitioners propose to put up a building in their lands. It is alleged by the petitioners that when they made the preparatory works in their lands for the construction proposed, the first respondent, the Village Officer has issued Exts.P4 and P5 stop memos alleging that they have partially filled up a pond existed in their lands, contravening the provisions of the Act. It is stated by the petitioners that Exts.P4 and P5 stop memos have been issued on the premise that the pond existed in the lands of the petitioners is a "wetland" falling within the scope of the Act. The petitioners challenge the stop memos in the writ petition. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the pond existed in their lands would not fall within the scope of "wetland" as defined in the Act.

(2.) A report has been filed by the first respondent in the matter stating, among others, that the petitioners attempted to reclaim the pond existed in their lands and if the pond in the lands is permitted to be reclaimed, the same would affect the water source of the people and lead to water logging in the area. It is stated in the report that the pond in the lands of the petitioners would fall within the scope of "wetland" in terms of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.