MARUVAKKAD PADASEKHARA KARSHAKA UNION Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions arise from an order passed by the District Collector, Ernakulam on 13.12.2018 concerning the paddy cultivation and fishing operations at Maruvakkad padasekharam. W.P.(C) No.16314 of 2019 is instituted by an association of the owners of the paddy fields in the padasekharam, challenging the order of the District Collector and W.P.(C) No.20026 of 2019 is instituted by one of the owners of the paddy fields in the padasekharam seeking orders for implementing the order of the District Collector. These writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment, referring to the parties and Exhibits as they appear in W.P.(C)

(2.) Paddy cultivation and fishing operations are carried on intermittently in the padasekharam, the area of which is approximately 435 acres. In terms of the accepted norms, fishing operation is permissible in the padasekharam only from 1st of November till 30th of April of the succeeding year and paddy cultivation is carried on in the padasekharam during the remaining period. It is stated by the petitioners that most of the owners of the paddy fields in the padaesekharam are small holders and are not indulging in paddy cultivation as the same is not financially viable for them. It is also stated by the petitioners that the income of the owners is, therefore, mainly from the fishing operations carried on during intermittent period by engaging contractors. It is also stated by the petitioners that the contractors who are assigned the right to conduct fishing operations in a large area like the instant one have to make huge investments for undertaking the activity. It is also stated that as per the practice prevailing, the contractors are raising the funds required for the same by availing loans from banks and other financial institutions. Further, as per the prevailing practice, contractors have to make the payments due to the owners of the paddy fields in advance. It is, therefore, necessary that the right to conduct fishing operations in a given year shall be assigned to the contractor concerned sufficiently in advance so as to enable him to raise the funds required for the same and also to disburse the funds to the members of the association. It is also stated by the petitioners that one among the owners of the paddy fields, namely, the fourth respondent has approached the first respondent, contending that if the right to conduct fishing operations in the padaesekharam is assigned/auctioned in advance, the contractor to whom the right is assigned would start sowing fish seeds without waiting for the end of the paddy harvest and would also open the sluice intended for regulation of flow of water for both the activities and permit salt water in the padasekharam for the fishing operations, which would damage the standing crops. On the said complaint, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 order, in terms of which it was directed that the right to conduct fishing operations in the padasekharam shall not be assigned before 31 st of October and that the sluice shall not be opened before 15th of November. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid directions in Ext.P2 order. The fourth respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20026 of 2019 seeks directions for implementation of Ext.P2 order.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.