KILLIMANGALAM PAANJAAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is common knowledge that the agricultural production in the State of Kerala has dwindled to almost nil, about which this Court can take judicial notice. It is not as if the powers that be were not aware of the alarming position of the agricultural land and agricultural production in the State, so as to enable them to take steps to remedy the situation. They were aware of the same as early as in 1967, when they promulgated the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, with the avowed object of protecting agricultural land in the State from conversion. But, if we compare the total extent of agricultural land in 1967 to that available today, it can be seen that the said legislation had absolutely no effect on the dwindling trend in the extent of agricultural land in the State. It is not because that legislation was ineffective. It is because the persons, who were vested with the powers to implement that legislation, did not implement that legislation in the right spirit in which that legislation was brought into force. From the cases which have come up before me in respect of filling up of agricultural and wet land, I find that the said legislation was used more to convert agricultural land than to protect agricultural lands from being converted. The present is a classic example of that fact. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. The members of the Society consist of 150 agricultural families and undertake paddy cultivation in a 'padasekharam' having an extent of nearly 65 hectares in Killimangalam Village, Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District. Respondents 7 and 8 also own land in the 'padasekharam'. They filed Exts. P4 and P5 applications seeking permission to fill up 5 cents of land for construction of houses thereon. The additional Tahsildar, Thalappilly Taluk, submitted Ext. P15 report to the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the applicants do not have other properties for construction of houses. By Ext. P16, the Principal Agricultural Officer also recommended permission to fill up the land in question. Pursuant thereto, Exts. P17 and P18 orders were issued granting permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to respondents 7 and 8 to fill up the land. The petitioner submits that Ext. P15 report itself is a false report, insofar as, as evidenced by Ext. P19, respondents 7 and 8 had 87 cents of land elsewhere. It is further submitted that in the guise of filling up of 5 cents land each on the basis of Exts. P17 and P18 orders, respondents 7 and 8 have filled up the entire land in their possession, which has resulted in dwindling of the agricultural land in the area further and also obstruction to the free flow of water in the 'padasekharam'. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext. P22 complaint before the third respondent. The same has also not been considered, is the complaint of the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent supporting Exts. P17 and P18. The third respondent does not now dispute Ext. P19. His only contention is that, the properties mentioned therein are not owned independently by respondents 7 and 8, but the same are jointly owned by the legal heirs of late Kunjunny Ezhuthassan, which include respondents 7 and 8. Therefore, that alone cannot be considered for the question of deciding whether respondents 7 and 8 had other properties in their ownership for construction is the present stand of the 3rd respondent.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 7 and 8 also. They also do not dispute the fact that they jointly inherited with other siblings 87 cents of land, which originally belonged to their father, who is no more. They do not state in the counter affidavit that, that property is not fit for construction also. Their contention is that, pursuant to Exts. P17 and P18 orders, they have filled up the land and constructed houses, wherein they are residing now. They take the stand that, the Writ Petition is the result of ill-will of the person representing the petitioner Society against respondents 7 and 8. They would contend that, that person is not competent to represent the Society, which is defunct. They point out that most of the properties in the 'padasekharam' have now been filled up and therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit against respondents 7 and 8 in respect of the same subject matter, which has now been dismissed.