KRISHNENDU P K Vs. STATE OF KERALA; KUMARAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR; LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE; PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER; RAKINDO DEVELOPERS (P) LTD ; 4A CONSTRUCTION; STATE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER TENDER INVITING AUTHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. The petitioner is a member of Ward No.8 of Kumarakam Grama Panchayat. Records reveal that Methran Kayal/Seminary Kayal is spreading across a vast area of 420 acres and is a part of the Vembanad Lake, which is the largest wetland in Kerala. 378 acres of Methran Kayal is stated to be owned by various subsidiary companies of the seventh respondent herein and 28 acres is owned by individual farmers. By Ext.P2 order dated 4 th February, 2016, this Court restrained the seventh respondent from reclaiming the land. As per Ext.P3 order passed on 7.4.2016 in another writ petition, this Court directed the District Collector, Kottayam to consider the request of the seventh respondent to permit them to put up necessary bunds in consultation with the Local Level Monitoring Committee. According to the petitioner, based on the conspiracy hatched between the seventh respondent, the District Collector and the Department of Agriculture, the work for construction of bunds around the Methran Kayal Padasekharam has been tendered as per Ext.P5 for a sum of Rs.64,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs only). Steps are being taken by the State Government to award of work in relation to the development work at Methran Kayal Padasekharam in Kumarakom Krishibhavan, Kottayam and this writ petition is filed challenging the same. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that the Government, in order to help the seventh respondent, wants to spend public fund for putting up the bunds and if the bunds are put up, the seventh respondent will take advantage of the same and will have ample business activities.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, by filing counter affidavit on behalf of the fifth respondent, opposes the writ petition, contending that the petitioner is in fact supporting the case of the seventh respondent. This writ petition is filed based on false and frivolous grounds and that there is no bonafides in the writ petition. Vembanadu lake is a lake traditionally having paddy cultivation mainly in Kuttanad area, and there are paddy fields in more than one lakh acres. A large extent of such land was not cultivated for the last 10 to 15 years. Methran Kayal was under cultivation till 2008. The seventh respondent has purchased the paddy fields which resulted in the stoppage of cultivation in the area. The Government had taken earnest efforts to cultivate the entire paddy fields in the Kuttanad area by providing all assistance to the land owners, paddy cultivators and Padasekhara committees. In that regard, the Director of Agriculture had invited tenders for strengthening the outer bunds of paddy fields, setting up of pumping station, clearing vachals (inner canals) etc. The competent authority has already finalized the tender proceedings and the same has already been awarded to the eighth respondent as is clear from Annexure R5(a). Pursuant to such award of work, the eighth respondent has already commenced work and the process of de-watering will be completed at an early date. He further draws the attention of the Court to the literature published by the seventh respondent while launching the Kumarakom Tourist resort Village in Methran Kayal area, which is downloaded from the website, produced as Annexure R5(d). The proposal put forward by the seventh respondent is diametrically opposite to the proposal by the Government to cultivate the Methran Kayal with paddy. On the basis of such facts, learned Additional Advocate General argues that the facts on record would fully support the belief of the Government that the present litigation is an experimental one to see that the project of the Government to cultivate the Methran Kayal is not taking off and that this litigation is at the instance of or to help the seventh respondent.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, we are of the clear conclusion that the Government wants to protect the property in question for the purpose of paddy cultivation. For that purpose, the Government wants to put up bund, to prohibit soil erosion and thereafter commence de-watering process so that the land within the bunds would be suitable for paddy cultivation. The paddy cultivation in the area will commence from November 2016. Since the paddy cultivation was being done till 2008 and as the land meant for paddy cultivation is being reduced to a great extent in the State for one or other reasons, it is obligatory on the part of the Government to protect the interest of its citizens by encouraging the land owners to cultivate paddy. With this object, the Government wants to spend about Rs.58 Lakhs for putting up bunds in order to encourage the land owners to cultivate paddy. Moreover, bunds are being constructed on the boundary abutting the canal, which is being done in Government Land and not in private land. Though bunds are in existence for long time, they were not repaired on yearly basis, consequent on which, they have become weak, strengthening of which requires a thorough re-laying of bunds outside the Methran Kayal, paddy land and the Government land. The construction of the bund is absolutely necessary in order to drain out water from canals to the paddy fields.