Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji directed the State Government to undertake measures to address recurrent flooding in the Kuttanad area of Alappuzha district, acting on preliminary and detailed reports to be submitted by the Chief Engineer following a comprehensive study of the locality. The direction arose in a suo motu public interest litigation instituted on a letter from the teachers and students of the SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam in Kainakary Grama Panchayat, highlighting classroom inundation and interruption of classes. In its final order, the Court required a time-bound technical assessment and consequential executive action focused on long-term flood-mitigation and restoration of normal academic functioning, within the applicable statutory framework regulating water management and padasekharam operations.

In May 2025, incessant monsoon rains in Alappuzha breached an earthen embankment bordering paddy fields in Kainakary Grama Panchayat, Kuttanad. Two hundred students and teachers from SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, which became partially submerged, addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention; the letter was treated as a suo motu writ petition. The School is located on the outer bund of Paruthivalavu paddy fields in Ward No. 3 of Kainakary Grama Panchayat, an area that follows traditional bund-and-pumping agriculture in contiguous padasekharams regulated by committees responsible for pumps and earthen embankments. The “Madaveezhcha” event on 29 May 2025 partially submerged the School; classes were held in shifts on upper floors, including library and computer rooms, while many students’ homes were also inundated. Students and teachers reported that requests to the padasekhara samithi did not yield timely action.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Issue of Sanction Under S.197 CrPC Can Be Raised at Any Stage of Trial | Corruption Charges Against Public Servant to Proceed

On 23 July 2025, the Court directed the District Collector to convene a joint meeting of relevant officials from the Education and Agriculture Departments and local bodies to ascertain facts and issue necessary directions. The Kerala State Legal Services Authority was impleaded, and an Amicus Curiae was appointed. Following a meeting on 28 July 2025 with district-level officials and stakeholders—including representatives of the Panchayat, the padasekhara samithi, the School’s management and principal, and departmental officers—the Collector convened a further meeting on 2 August 2025 to remove waterlogging and resume academic activity.

The Collector’s report dated 13 August 2025 recorded that the complaint had been forwarded to the Principal Agricultural Officer on 11 June 2025; inspections were conducted; and instructions issued to drain paddy fields to facilitate school functioning. The Padasekhara Samrakhshana Samithi was instructed to undertake round-the-clock pumping using 50 HP, 60 HP, and two 12 HP submersible pumps, with two additional 5 HP pump sets from Nedumudi Grama Panchayat; sanitation of school premises after dewatering was directed; and the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture) was tasked to inspect breaches, identify leakages, and recommend reinforcement using sandbags. The Deputy Director of Education was asked to report academic days lost due to waterlogging; the padasekhara samithi was instructed to hire five additional 10 HP submersible pumps and provide rental cost estimates; and sanitation, bund reinforcement, and sand supply for safe access were directed.

The Amicus Curiae and KELSA visited the site on 9 August 2025, finding the school compound still flooded, sandbags used as walkways, and three indigenous dewatering systems—two of which were non-functional—with parts of the padasekharam and the School submerged. The petition was heard on 31 July, 11 August, and 14 August 2025; counsel submissions were recorded for respondents and the amicus, and final directions were issued on 11 September 2025.

“The subject matter can be divided into three components. The first is the remedial measures in respect of the School. The second is the statutory framework and the action to be taken thereunder. The third is the possibility of evolving a long-term solution.”

“The Kuttanad area of Alappuzha district, where the School is situated, lies below sea level.” The Bench recorded submissions on geography, agriculture, and hydrology, including the traditional reclamation and dewatering systems in padasekharams and the frequent bund failures during monsoon floods that submerge fields and destroy crops. “This, in short, is the position on site.”

On immediate relief: “This group of officers will continue as an ad hoc committee for the subject matter under the supervision of the District Collector. The grievances of the school authorities can be placed before this ad hoc committee, which is already seized of the issue referred to it.”

On statutory regulation: “The traditional agricultural practices in the area are regulated under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (Act of 2003).” “Chapter VIII of the Act of 2003 deals with the concept of execution of works by joint labour.” “The concept of Padasekharam has been acknowledged, with Explanation to Section 32 defining ‘padasekharam’… and ‘committee of padasekharam’…” “Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 provides for constitution of the committee…” “Rule 16 of the Rules of 2005 details the functions of the Executive Committee.” “Supervisory powers are conferred on the Collector, Punja Special Officer, or the Irrigation Officer under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005.”

The Bench recorded the regulatory purpose: “Chapter VIII of the Act of 2003 acknowledges the practice of joint agriculture as established by local custom and seeks to regulate it by imposing the responsibility on the local committees and empowering the District Collector and Punja Special Officer to issue necessary directions.” “The Padasekharam Committee has to prepare an annual Action Plan… monitor its execution… ensure optimum use of resources… and maintain proper accounts.”

Regarding the padasekhara samithi’s position: “It is acknowledged that the Samithi is responsible for the preparation of annual plan, however, the annual plan has not been placed on record.” “It appears… repairs to breaches in the bunds often require immediate action and ready cash, which many of these Samithies lack.”

On systemic measures: “Apart from the steps taken for maintaining and strengthening the bunds, and ensuring the effective functioning of the Padasekhara Samithi, various measures can be explored.” “A study can be carried out under the supervision of the Chief Engineer, Kuttanad Package and Inland Navigation, to examine how occurrences such as the present one can be minimised.”

On compliance and accountability: “The statutory rules place the responsibility on the Padasekharam Committee to maintain the bunds and earthen embankments, and to regulate water for the irrigation of paddy fields.” “Without an annual plan, which is a statutory mandate, any measures taken by the committees would be ad hoc.” “This cannot be attributed wholly to an act of nature.”

The Court directed :“The ad hoc committee of officers formed in the meeting held on 28 July 2025 will continue to function till the issue concerning the School is resolved. The District Collector, Alappuzha, will issue the necessary instructions in this regard, as directed in the earlier orders passed in this petition. In the event of a similar situation arising in relation to other educational institutions in the area in future, the District Collector shall adopt the same approach by convening a meeting of the ad hoc committee to issue the required directions.”

“The District Collector, Alappuzha, either personally or through the concerned Punja Special Officer, will conduct an inquiry into the collapse of the bund at Paruthivalavu paddy fields, examine the role of Respondent No.7 Samithi, and appropriate steps will be taken in accordance with the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2005. In the event, any adverse action is taken against Respondent No.7, they shall be entitled to all remedies available under law.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Pre-Operative Fit-Out Workers Not Covered Under Section 2(9) of ESI Act | Refund of Contributions Directed

“The District Collector will call for information from all the Padasekharam Committees within the jurisdiction as to whether the annual plans are being prepared and implemented, and issue necessary instructions.”

“The Chief Engineer, Kuttanad Package and Inland Navigation will examine the issues raised in this petition, study the long-term solutions, and will submit a preliminary report within four months to the State Government, followed by a detailed report thereafter. If the Chief Engineer requires any assistance for carrying out the study, in terms of logistics, infrastructure, or manpower, the State Government will provide the same.”

“Upon receipt of the reports, the State Government will consider the feasibility of the recommendations and take necessary and appropriate action, as warranted.” The writ petition was “disposed of as above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Shri. R. Rajpradeep; Sri. K. K. Rajeev; Shri. Abdul Khader Kunju S.; Sri. Amal Kasha; Shri. Sachin Ramesh; Smt. Sreedevi S.; Shri. A Al Fayad; Mr. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader.

Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated By The High Court In Waterlogging Of SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, Alappuzha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:67562
Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 87 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji