MURALEEDHARAN Vs. AGRICULTURE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for a direction to quash Exhibits P4 to P6.

(2.) THIS is a case where the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and he along with his wife and children are having 12 Acres of land in Ayilur Village, Palakkad District. It is stated that the petitioner was using the neighbours drying yard for processing and storing of the rice gathered from his paddy cultivation. For having a drying yard, the petitioner duly applied for approval of the Joint Director of Agriculture and for the said project Rs.60,000/- have been sanctioned as subsidy. These communications have been produced as Exhibits P2 and P3. But, when the petitioner started the construction activities, a stop memo was issued by the Village Officer as per Exhibit P4. The petitioner was directed by the Panchayat to apply before the Agricultural Officer in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and the Rules. Exhibit P7 is said to be an application submitted before the Agricultural Officer.

(3.) IN fact going by the definition of 'paddy land' under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and the Rules, it includes allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. Herein what is thought of is the construction of a drying yard. Evidently, the agriculturists can effectively conduct their agricultural operations only if such facilities are there. The petitioner has already obtained permission from the Kerala State Seed Development Authority. But, still, it is upto the Agricultural Officer and other functionaries under the Wet Land Act to consider whether it conforms with the provisions of the Wet Land Act. The object and purpose of the Act is to prevent reclamation of paddy and wet land. Promotion of paddy cultivation and allied matters should get proper attention also.