Blog

Petitioner had been granted permission for use of the property for fish farming which is not used for cultivation in long time on condition that the clay extracted could not be taken out of the premises, however petitioner had made an application to remove the clay from the property and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN in the case of VIPIN DAS vs. STATE OF KERALA (WP(C) NO. 4070 OF 2022) on 18^th March, 2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted an application for conducting a fish farm in 2.55 Acres of land the Revenue Divisional Officer had permitted the conduct of the fish farming on certain conditions.  Preparations were started for fish farming in the property, which had earlier been used for extraction of mud for brick making. The extracted clay, which was accumulated in the property, was creating a hurdle for the fish farming and the petitioner submitted an application for NOC before the RDO for removal of the clay so extracted. The RDO granted permission and by Exhibit P5 order dated 10.1.2022, the petitioner’s application for removal of clay was allowed by the Government. It is submitted that even thereafter, no steps were taken to issue transit passes for the petitioner to remove the clay from the property and the petitioner had submitted representations , which remained unanswered.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that there was a specific condition that the clay obtained would not be transported outside the property and the same shall be utilised for creating bunds without causing any conversion. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application before the RDO for NOC to enable him to transfer the clay, which was allowed by Exhibit P2 which resulted in Exhibit P5 order of the Government. It is further submitted that the property owned by the petitioner is a paddy land and there is a prohibition for conversion of such land in terms of Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008.

Petitioner had been granted permission for use of the property for fish farming on condition that the clay extracted could not be taken out of the premises. However, the petitioner had made an application to remove the clay from the property and Exhibit P2 NOC was admittedly granted by the RDO after considering all relevant aspect. In this view the court opined that the 3rd respondent cannot continue to raise objections  against the NOC granted by the RDO and the order of the Government, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue transit passes to the petitioner in tune with Exhibit P5 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh