JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a resident of Vypin. He states that he is an award winning agriculturist and he cultivates Pokkali rice during one half of the year and ventures into fish and shrimp farming during the next half. For carrying his agricultural activities, he took on lease property having an extent of 11.15 acres at Nayarambalam Village. Copy of the lease deed is produced as Exhibit P2. 2. The petitioner contends that, as an aftermath of the floods, which ravaged the State in the year 2018, the field, adjoining sluice pit and canals got filled with mud and slurry. Try as he might, it became impossible for him to carry out agricultural activities. He received advice that in order to make the land cultivable, he will have to strengthen the bunds around the paddy field and remove the slurry and mud. In the said circumstances, he ventured to secure the assistance of skilled personnel and an earthmover to carry out the work. However, when he commenced the work he was faced with serious resistance from respondents 8 and 9, who are leaders of the local union. Left with no alternative, he approached the 7th respondent and filed Ext.P5 request to visit his property and to render assistance. The 7th respondent, being the Agricultural Officer of the area visited the property and gave a recommendation that unless the salinity of the soil is managed, the yield would not improve. To manage the salinity, the petitioner had to remove the mud and slurry and strengthen the bund. Left with no alternative, Exhibit P6 and P6 (a) complaints were lodged by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, requesting him to intervene and permit the petitioner to carry out agricultural operations. However, no assistance was rendered. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 representation before the 5th respondent seeking intervention. When his request before the authorities did not yield any result, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to extend adequate and sufficient police protection for smooth cultivation for pokkali rice, shrimps and fish. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondent Nos. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to supervise the work of strengthening the bunds and removal of slurry and mud from the canals and sluice pit in paddy field. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs, directions or order restraining respondent Nos. 8, 9 and any persons claiming under them from entering into the paddy field of petitioner or committing waste in the paddy field of the petitioner.” 3. Sri. T.R.S Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Exts.P1 to P3 and it was argued that the petitioner’s efforts have been recognised by the Department of Agriculture and he has been conferred with numerous awards. According to the learned counsel, pokkali rice is cultivated from June to early November when the salinity level of the water in the fields is low. From mid-November to mid-April, he takes to prawn farming as the salinity of the water is high. He points out that sluice gates are used to control the water flow to the fields and the pokkali rice, draws nutrients from the prawns’ excrement and other remnants. The unique feature of this cultivation is that no manure or fertilizer need to be applied and the pokkali rice seedlings grow in an organic way that too in only some of the districts in the State of Kerala. The pokkali rice is famed the world over and has medicinal properties. He would point out that the expertise gained by the petitioner in this field has been clearly mentioned in Ext.P3 information furnished by the Agricultural Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He would take pains to point out that it would not be economically viable to carry out pokkali rice cultivation without first removing the mud and slurry and thereby reducing the salinity. According to the learned counsel, the obstruction caused by the party respondents will only forestall farmers to take up pokkali rice cultivation and nothing more. 4. The party respondents, on the other hand, opposed the prayer. They would contend that if the petitioner is permitted to carry out the activities, it would clearly violate the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. It was when the petitioner attempted to indiscriminately alter the paddy land that the party respondents had raised their objection. 5. They would contend that if the petitioner is permitted to carry out the activities, it would clearly violate the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. It was when the petitioner attempted to indiscriminately alter the paddy land that the party respondents had raised their objection. 5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that based on Exhibit P7 representation, the 5th respondent had ordered a detailed inspection to be conducted by the Agricultural Officer of the area. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the petitioner is a bona fide agriculturist who has been carrying out Pokkali rice cultivation. The Agricultural Officer has also reported that the slurry and mud are to be removed from the sluice pit and canals to enable the petitioner to carry out viable agricultural operations as the presence of salinity in the soil will result in low yield. Removal of mud and strengthening of the bund would also result in the field drying out. He would however point out that the removal of the mud and slurry as well as the strengthening of bunds will have to be monitored by the Agricultural Officer with the assistance of an Agricultural Engineer under the supervision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee of the local area. This would be necessary as the nature of equipment used and also the depth and the quantity of mud removed will have to be monitored. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. It is clearly borne out from the records that the petitioner is a bona fide agriculturist who has been carrying out farming activities for the past several years. He has been acknowledged as a prominent agriculturist by the Department of Agricultural Development and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of Kerala. Exhibit P3 issued by the Agricultural Officer and obtained under the Right to Information Act would show that he has been cultivating Pokkali rice and Shrimp farming for the past several years and he has been the recipient of considerable subsidy for his activities. Exhibit P4 letter issued by the Agricultural Officer substantiates the case of the petitioner that unless the mud and slurry are removed, the yield from the field cannot be improved. What was attempted by the petitioner as per the advice of the Agricultural Officer was removal of mud and slurry from the canal and sluice pit by using machinery and for strengthening the bund. What was attempted by the petitioner as per the advice of the Agricultural Officer was removal of mud and slurry from the canal and sluice pit by using machinery and for strengthening the bund. 7. The contention of the party respondents is that the said acts would infringe the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. I am afraid I cannot agree with the said submission. Section 3 of Act 28 of 2008 prohibits conversion or reclamation of land. The said provision reads as follows: “3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land: (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation.” 8. ‘Conversion’ under section 2 (iii) of the Act has been defined to mean the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. ‘Reclamation’ is defined under Section 2 (xv) to mean such act or series of acts whereby a paddy land or a wetland as defined under the Act is converted irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. However, sub-section (2) of Section 3 states the prohibition shall not apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation. Taking note of the facts of the instant case in its perspective, what is obvious is that the attempt of the petitioner was to prepare the land for Pokkali rice cultivation and that too without changing the ecological nature of the land. Strengthening of outer bunds for protecting the cultivation will also not attract the prohibition. Taking note of the facts of the instant case in its perspective, what is obvious is that the attempt of the petitioner was to prepare the land for Pokkali rice cultivation and that too without changing the ecological nature of the land. Strengthening of outer bunds for protecting the cultivation will also not attract the prohibition. I am of the considered opinion that removal of mud and slurry or the strengthening the bund for the purpose of carrying out pokkali rice cultivation will not violate any of the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. However, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader the acts which are being carried out by the petitioner will have to be strictly monitored. 9. I am of the view that the proposed acts of the petitioner can be regulated by issuing appropriate directions to the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of Act 28 of 2008 to visit the area and to ascertain the nature of the proposed acts of the petitioner. They can seek the assistance of the 7th respondent and an Agricultural Engineer. A report shall be prepared which shall be submitted before the 5th respondent who can be directed to take a decision after hearing the petitioner as well as the party respondents. 10. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to issue directions within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to visit the plot covered under Ext.P2 lease deed. The Local Level Monitoring Committee shall be accompanied by the 7th respondent and an Agricultural Engineer. They shall inspect the plot and furnish a report to the 5th respondent within a further period of one week detailing the manner in which the entire activity has to be carried out, the nature of machines to be used, the quantum of mud and slurry to be removed and the manner in which the bund can be strengthened. The 5th respondent shall thereafter summon the petitioner as well as respondents 8 and 9 and, after affording an opportunity of being heard, consider the request of the petitioner to remove mud and slurry in the sluice pit and canals and also for strengthening the bund using machines within a further period of ten days. The 5th respondent shall thereafter summon the petitioner as well as respondents 8 and 9 and, after affording an opportunity of being heard, consider the request of the petitioner to remove mud and slurry in the sluice pit and canals and also for strengthening the bund using machines within a further period of ten days. In terms of the directions so issued, the petitioner shall proceed and if any interference or obstruction is caused by the union or any other person claiming under them, adequate protection shall be granted by the respondents 3 and 4 to the petitioner to carry out the agricultural activities.