OUSEPH THOMAS @ A J THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P20 order of the Government. Exhibit P20 is with respect to a water channel, passing through the petitioner's property as asserted by the petitioner. The respondents 4 and 5 however assert that the channel itself does not pass through the property and flows through the boundary of the property. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the water is allowed to flow through the said channel, it would cause erosion of sand from his land and resultant damage to his land.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as early as in the year 2006, the petitioner had approached the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha with a suit, seeking injunction against the defendants and their men from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or the channel lying therein and from opening the RCC sluice without constructing a protection wall on the northern boundary of the channel using stone and cement in 50cm width and 45cm metre length. The defendants and their men were restrained from opening the sluice or taking any steps to dewater the holdings of the defendants in the Padasekharam through the scheduled property without constructing the specified protection wall as is seen from Ext.P1 judgment.

(3.) Later on, the Punja Special Officer had passed Exhibit P3 order, wherein she had directed the opening of the water channel so as to irrigate the paddy lands. The order at Exhibit P3 was challenged in an appeal before the District Collector, which resulted in Exhibit P5. The District Collector noticed that the decree restraining the defendants from opening the sluice in the water channel passing through the petitioner's property, specifically saved any action by the Punja Special Officer under the Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution of Joint Labour) Act, 1967 [for brevity the 'Act 20 of 1967']. The District Collector noticed that the sluice was opened only in every two months and the Punja Special Officer had directed opening of the sluice on the report of the Village Officer. The District Collector upheld the order of the Punja Special Officer overruling the contention of the petitioner that the opening of the sluice was in violation of the injunction order. The District Collector also directed to ensure that no erosion of sand is occurring from the land of the petitioner. Taking a conciliatory approach, the District Collector also observed that a retaining wall be constructed at the expense of the Padasekhara Samithy.