ORDER : KURIAN THOMAS, J. Petitioner challenges the complaint in C.C. No.777/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Muvattupuzha filed by the Village Officer under section 12(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The complainant alleges that the accused, who was the owner of an extent of 33.58 ares of land in Survey No.511/4A of Marady Village, had illegally reclaimed a paddy land by constructing a pond for fish cultivation and planted coconut saplings after building a compound wall using granite rocks. It is also alleged that the aforesaid activities were carried out without any permission and contrary to the prohibitory orders and since the land is included in the draft data bank prepared, the accused has committed the offence under section 23 of the Act. 3. Sri. Manoj P. Kunjachan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the said allegations. According to the learned counsel, though the subject property is described as 'paddy' in the Basic Tax Register as well as in the data bank since paddy cultivation was not possible, he had obtained an Aquaculture licence from the Deputy Director of Fisheries on 17.04.2019, as evidenced by Annexure A3 and he removed mud and slurry for that purpose. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid activity which led to stop memos and thereafter the complaint, is not contrary to law and hence the offence alleged is not made out. Relying upon the decision in Wonderla Holidays Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and Others [ 2021 (5) KHC 754 ] it was argued that the removal of mud and slurry for strengthening a bund for the purpose of carrying cultivation will not amount to a violation of the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the actions alleged to have been indulged in by the petitioner, would not amount to any offence under the provisions of the Act and hence the prosecution is liable to be quashed. 4. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that a perusal of the complaint itself indicates that the petitioner had, under the guise of aquaculture attempted to reclaim the paddy land and had even planted coconut saplings. 4. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that a perusal of the complaint itself indicates that the petitioner had, under the guise of aquaculture attempted to reclaim the paddy land and had even planted coconut saplings. It was also pointed out that what was actually done by the petitioner was not strengthening of the bund, but construction of a compound wall by using rocks and hence the conduct of the petitioner was a clear attempt to overcome the provisions of the statute and is therefore penal in nature. 5. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced and on a perusal of the complaint filed by the Village Officer it is evident that petitioner's property is included in the draft data-bank relating to properties that are paddy land and prepared under the Act. Therefore the said property comes within the purview of the Act. Petitioner cannot hence carry on any activity that can amount to reclamation of paddy land. 6. In the decision in Wonderla Holidays Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and Others (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that fish farming is permissible as an intermediary crop in paddy land. Though fish farming is permissible as an intermediary crop, the question arises whether every activity towards fish farming would constitute a permissible activity. Deft attempts to reclaim paddy land under the guise of intermediary crops also have to be thwarted. 7. As per section 2(ix) of the Act, an “intermediary crop” means a short term crop, cultivated in between two paddy cultivation periods in an interchangeable manner according to the ecological nature of the paddy land like vegetables, pulses, plantain, fish etc. 8. Though the decision in Wonderla Holiday's case (supra) holds that fish cultivation will fall within the category of an intermediary crop, the definition explicitly indicates that the intermediary crop must be carried out in an interchangeable manner, between two paddy cultivation periods. The said definition envisages that the nature of intermediary crop must not result in changing the nature of the land or the character of the land. Further, the nature of cultivation has to be in a manner that is interchangeable between the two paddy cultivation periods. By cultivating an intermediary crop, if paddy cultivation becomes impossible, it cannot be termed as an intermediary crop. Further, the nature of cultivation has to be in a manner that is interchangeable between the two paddy cultivation periods. By cultivating an intermediary crop, if paddy cultivation becomes impossible, it cannot be termed as an intermediary crop. The intermediary crop must be interchangeable in nature and in consonance with the ecological nature of the paddy land. The category of crops that are specified in the definition of the intermediary crop must also be cultivated in a manner that will enable paddy to be cultivated in the next cultivating period and should also be in tune with the ecology. 9. By constructing a pond inside a paddy land, the nature of the paddy land will be altered. The ecological nature of the paddy land will also be affected. Even the interchangeability of the paddy land will be affected by constructing a pond inside unless it is for irrigation purposes of the paddy land. By the construction of a pond inside the paddy land and providing a compound wall with rocks, the nature of land will change resulting in a total impossibility of paddy cultivation. 10. In the instant case, the licence relied upon by the petitioner, produced as Annexure A3, though cannot be looked into as a document in this proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C, still, it indicates that permission was granted only on condition that the depth of the area will not be increased without permission from the appropriate authority. Concededly, no such permission has been obtained by the petitioner to increase the depth of the paddy land. Hence, reliance upon the said permission is of no avail. 11. Apart from the above, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31561/2019 challenging the stop memo issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. After observing that the activity of an intermediary crop can be effected without affecting the ecological balance of the land, the court while setting aside some of the conditions issued in the stop order, specifically restrained the petitioner from carrying on the activity of aquaculture. Therefore under no circumstances could the petitioner have carried out the activity of aquaculture or digging of the paddy land. 12. Even otherwise, the complaint alleges that the petitioner indulged in planting of coconut saplings in paddy land which is clearly violative of the provisions of the statute. Therefore under no circumstances could the petitioner have carried out the activity of aquaculture or digging of the paddy land. 12. Even otherwise, the complaint alleges that the petitioner indulged in planting of coconut saplings in paddy land which is clearly violative of the provisions of the statute. Further, the contentions now urged by the petitioner are all matters which require an appreciation of evidence and therefore the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked. Hence, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C and it is dismissed.