M. GEORGE ABRAHAM Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY put the facts of the case is as follows. The petitioners are the husband and the wife and they are Non Resident Indians. They, along with their son Prakash Abraham, are in the ownership and possession of 1.55.40 Hectares of land in Survey No. 381/2 of Kuttapuzha Village. The aforementioned property was originally a paddy field, but it was remaining uncultivable for many years. The adjacent properties are also remaining uncultivable. In these circumstances, the petitioners along with their son applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla, for permission to reclaim the said property so as to cultivate coconut tree saplings. The Revenue Divisional Officer has called for the reports from the Tahsildar and the Principal Agricultural Officer. It was reported that the properties are remaining uncultivable and there is no cultivation since 1994. It was also reported that due to water logging, paddy cultivation is impossible. Ext. P1 is the report of the Principal Agricultural Officer. Pursuant to the reports of the Tahsildar and the Principal Agricultural Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla, has accorded sanction to the petitioners to reclaim the property subject to certain conditions. Ext. P2 is the order dated 28.05.1997 granting permission to cultivate coconut tree saplings after reclaiming the property. Pursuant to Ext. P2 order, the petitioners reclaimed the property and cultivated the same with coconut tree saplings.

(2.) WHILE so, the 1st petitioner was afflicted with renal failure and both of his kidneys became defunct. Thereafter, he was under constant dialysis abroad and was unable to look after his cultivation. Subsequently, he underwent kidney transplantation and regained health to a reasonable extent. But, in the meantime, due to the above said ailment of the 1st petitioner, they could not look after the cultivation properly. The petitioners and their son were in U.S.A. for a long period. Hence almost all saplings and trees were ruined and remaining few saplings also became unworthy. Therefore, the petitioners decided to improve the property with fresh coconut tree saplings. The petitioners came down to India on 17.04.2012 and started replanting process. While so, on 26.04.2012 at about 10 A.M., a group of people, claimed to be activists of a left -oriented political party, led by the respondents 6 and 7 trespassed into the aforementioned property and obstructed the workers of the petitioners. The workers were told that they will be done away with in the event of they continuing with the coconut palm cultivation. Respondents 6 and 7 abused the petitioners over the telephone and threatened that if any attempt is made to continue the cultivation, dire consequences will have to be suffered. Ext. P3 is the complaint submitted before respondents 2 to 5 seeking police protection to coconut palm cultivation. But no action had been taken so far on Ext. P3.

(3.) THE 6th and 7th respondents claiming themselves as leaders of C.I.T.U. and Kerala State Karshaka Thozhilali Union, filed a counter affidavit jointly denying the allegations in the writ petition. They contended that the property owned by the petitioners is a paddy field having an extent of 1.55.40 Hectares. Petitioners' paddy field is a part of 'Kaviyoor Puncha' having an extent of 750 Acres of paddy fields. 'Kaviyoor Puncha' exists in Thiruvalla Municipality, Kaviyoor Panchayath and Kunnamthanam Panchayath. 500 Acres of paddy field is situated in Thiruvalla Municipality and remaining 250 Acres is in Kaviyoor and Kunnamthanam Panchayaths. Petitioners' paddy field is situated in Thiruvalla Municipality. Petitioners' property is described as 'paddy field' in Data Bank prepared by the Thiruvalla Municipality as per Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and physically situated as a cultivatable paddy land. Thiruvalla Municipality has taken earnest efforts to cultivate the paddy field in Kaviyoor Puncha and paddy cultivation is increased substantially for the last three years in Kaviyoor Puncha. The petitioners' and some other paddy land owners did not care to cultivate the paddy fields even after the continuous requests of the Localbody Authorities and the Agricultural Officers. After the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, as per Section 3(1) of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to convert the paddy fields owned by them, except in accordance with provisions of the said Act. Under the guise of filing this writ petition, the petitioners are trying to reclaim their paddy fields, violating the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore, due to the lack of permission under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.