JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Sri. Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader Forest, representing the Appellants. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel is appearing for the respondents 1 to 22 in W.A. No. 761 of 2019 who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 30472 of 2018. The respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 1395 of 2019 [writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 32190 of 2018] is represented by the learned advocate Sri. M. A. Abdul Hakkim. The respondent Nos. 25 and 26 in W.A. No. 761 of 2019 are represented by the learned counsel Sri. P. T. Govindan. Sri. Imam G. Karat, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 23 in W.A. No. 761 of 2019. 2. These Appeals are preferred by the Principal Chief Conservator [Forest Land and Resources] and the State of Kerala, to challenge the common judgment dated 08.10.2010 in W.P.(C) Nos. 30472 and 32190 of 2018. The Writ Petition No. 30472 of 2018 was filed by 22 land owners whereas the Writ Petition No. 32190 of 2018 was filed by one Methew Sebastine. They are carrying on the agricultural activities within the Chokkodu Grama Panchayath area, in the Malappuram district. To irrigate their agricultural land, the land owners had installed pipes in the Chakkikuzhi reserve forest, to draw water from the upstream of the Kottapuzha river. 3. This resulted in scarcity of water for those residing in the down stream. Accordingly, challenging the action of the land owners in drawing water by using pipe lines, through the Chakkikuzhi Forest Range, the W.P.(C) No. 13834 of 2018 was earlier filed by one Roy Joseph and Sivaraman. 4. The above case came to be disposed of on 13.04.2018 with direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to address the water scarcity concern raised by the people, residing in the down stream area. Following such directions, the PCCF [Forest Land and Resources], Thiruvananthapuram passed an order on 30.06.2018. In the said order, the officer noted that the local people in the Ward No. 8 and 9 of the Amarambalam Grama Panchayat are dependant on the Kottapuzha river flowing through reserved forest for their drinking water requirement. But because of the installed large pipes through the reserve forest, to draw river water, the water in the river becomes scarce, particularly in the dry months. But because of the installed large pipes through the reserve forest, to draw river water, the water in the river becomes scarce, particularly in the dry months. Such illegal exploitation of river water for agricultural purpose, was found to be in violation of the provisions of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 and the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. Consequently, the PCCF issued direction on 30.06.2018 to the forest authorities to ensure removal of all pipes having more than ½ inch diameter, which are laid through the reserved forest. 5. Being aggrieved by the above directions, the Writ Petition Nos. 30472 and 32190 of 2018 came to be filed. The petitioners contended that the drawing water for irrigation of their agricultural fields should not be treated as non-forest activity. They also argued that, agricultural operations are protected under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests [Vesting and Assignment] Act, 1971. 6. Adverting to those contentions, the learned Judge opined that the activity undertaken by the writ petitioner [drawing of water from the river flowing through reserve forest] is not a non-forest activity, in view of the exclusion in the explanation, under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980. Accordingly, the order passed by the PCCF [Forest Land & Resources] on 30.06.2018 was quashed with direction to the authorities to reconsider the matter by verifying whether enough water is available, in the downstream. 7. Assailing the above judgment dated 08.10.2018, Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned Special Government Pleader would project that the Kottappuzha is a small river flowing through the reserve forest and in that segment of the small river, the writ petitioners have laid 40/50 pipes, to draw water for their agricultural operations. This has resulted in drinking water scarcity, particularly during the summer season, for those residing in the down stream area. Therefore, drawing of precious natural resource water through pipe lines from the reserve forest, cannot be permitted. The observation made by the learned Judge to the effect that such drawing of water for the purpose of agriculture is not to be treated as non-forest activity, is also questioned by the Government pleader. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners Sri. Deepu Thankan and Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakkim would refer to the Kerala Private Forest [Vesting and Assingment ] Act, 1971, to argue that the entire area was originally private forest. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners Sri. Deepu Thankan and Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakkim would refer to the Kerala Private Forest [Vesting and Assingment ] Act, 1971, to argue that the entire area was originally private forest. It was then notified as reserve forest, under the notification dated 11.01.1977. According to counsel, the cultivation to be carried out in the land assigned to the respondents/writ petitioners, should be considered to be a permitted activity. On this basis they argue that the drawing water from the river flowing through reserve forest, must be understood as an act, which does not militate against the objectives of the Forest [Conservation] Act 1980. 9. The above contentions of the rival counsel are considered. Section (2) of the Forest Conservation Act restricts the use of forest land, for non-forest purpose. The explanation to Section (2) indicates that 'non-forest purpose' would mean breaking up or clearing of any forest land for the purpose of cultivation or any purpose other than reafforestation. The only exclusion is work, relating to conservation, development and management of forest. If the activity of drawing water, through pipes laid across the reserve forest, for agricultural purposes is to be considered, we have no doubt that such activity would be a non-forest activity. Moreover, this cannot also be something that could be construed towards conservation, development and management of the forest. The contrary conclusion that such activities would be covered under the exclusion clause to the explanation in Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act is found to be unmerited and the same is interfered accordingly. 10. Drawing of water from the river located within the reserve forest through pipe line is a non-forest activity under the Forest [Conservation] Act and therefore it cannot have any legal sanction. The extracted water is impacting the drinking water requirement of those living in the down stream area. As a Court of law, such activity of the Writ Petitioners could not be permitted by the learned Judge. 11. The Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 08.10.2018 in W.P.(C) Nos. 30472 and 32190 of 2018 and dismissing the Writ Petitions.