The High Court dismissed writ appeals challenging a single judge's judgment that excluded specific land from the paddy land data bank. The court held that land not suitable for paddy cultivation on the date of the Act's commencement, despite being fallow, does not qualify as paddy land under the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 1539 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2021 IN WP(C) 27200/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/ADD. 7TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
SHYMON.M.P., AGED 54 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN, MADATHIKATTIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA 682 307.
BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN PAUL C THOMAS FRANKLIN ARACKAL BABU M. ADESH JOSHI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN W.P.(C):
1 T. G. SUNIL., AGED 56 YEARS KRISHNA GARDENS, SANKARANANDASRAMAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN 682 018.
2 REENA SUNIL, W/O. T.G. SUNIL, KRISHNA GARDENS, SANKARANANDASRAMAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN 682 018.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 2 :
R1 & R2 BY P. CHANDRALEKHA R3-R5 & R7 & R8 SRI. S. RANJITH, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY SMT. C.G. BINDU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, ALONG WITH WA.37/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 3 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 37 OF 2022
JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2021 IN WP(C) 6685/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:
SHYMON M.P. AGED 54 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN MADATHIKATTIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA, ERNAKULAM , PIN-682 307.
BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN FRANKLIN ARACKAL PAUL C THOMAS BABU M. NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN HAARIS MOOSA ADESH JOSHI
RESPONDENT/S/PETITIONER & RESONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN WPC:
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 4 :
PIN- 682 301.
BY ADV C.G.BINDU
R1 BY SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR R2 TO R4 & R6 & R7 BY SRI. S.RENJITH, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY SMT. C.G.BINDHU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1539/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 5 :
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
The captioned writ appeals are materially connected, filed by a respondent, and he himself a third person respectively, challenging the common judgment dated 14.09.2021 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 27200 of 2020 and 6685 of 2021.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 6 :
land was kept ideal without any cultivation for the last 25 years and 70% of the land was filled up and remaining as dry land, but the rest of the properties lying marshy has some vegetation/trees as mentioned in the report of the Village Officer, Manakunnam, and further it is mentioned that the Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur inspected the site and reported that though a good portion of the land remaining as dry land, rest of the land is marshy with certain trees.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 7 :
area of the land that has to be removed from the data bank or to be included in the data bank; and for that purpose the help of a surveyor is a must for the committee; and accordingly, the Local Level Monitoring Committee decided to write a letter to the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk for the services of the Taluk Surveyor.
The writ petitioners are co-owners in possession of the 1.4239
Hectares of land in survey No. 801/1 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. According to them, the said land had not been cultivated with paddy from the year 1965 onwards and they along with 1st petitioner's mother (1st respondent in the other appeal), who is having 1.429 Hectares of land in the very same survey number lying as a single plot, having a total extent of 2.8478 Hectares, applied for conversion of the entire land for other agricultural purposes i.e., for planting coconut seedlings, before the District Collector, Ernakulam under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967, and the
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 8 :
District Collector after obtaining reports from the Village Officer, Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned passed an order that the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not applicable to the land in question, and no permission is necessary under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 9 :
(KSREC).
KSREC, the land in survey number in question is lying as a fallow land with mixed vegetation prior to the commencement of the Act, 2008 and that no paddy cultivation is seen after 1967. Anyhow, this Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee concerned to take a decision based on the report of the KSREC. While so, the first writ petitioner's mother filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kanayannur for the assessment of the basic tax in respect of the property measuring 70 Ares in the aforesaid survey, lying as a garden land, to which the KLU Order did not apply.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 10 :
treating the said land as converted/garden land. The Local Level Monitoring Committee was also directed to pass orders on the application dated 22.08.2017 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in the light of the report of the KSREC.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 11 :
Monitoring Committee and the Tahsildar, Kanayannur respectively, is causing irreparable injury and loss to the writ petitioner. It was in the said background that the writ petition was filed, seeking a direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P10 application dated 22.08.2017 to remove the property from the data bank taking into account Ext. P12 report of the KSREC, and also to quash Ext. P18 decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee dated 10.02.2021, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Apart from the same, disposal of Ext. P16 application dated 20.11.2020 for reassessing the land tax pending before the Tahsildar was also sought for.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 12 :
submissions made across the Bar and taking into account the judgments rendered by this Court in regard to the removal of the properties included in the data bank, and also taking into account various reports made by the statutory authorities and the KSREC, has arrived at the following conclusions:
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 13 :
published, the land was included in the Draft Data Bank indicating that it is a converted land planted with coconut trees, 30 year old by then. To the predicament of the petitioners, in the final Data Bank, 70 Ares of land of the mother was shown as converted land and 72 Ares as paddy land. In the case of petitioners in WP(C) No.27200/2020, 72 Ares of the land was shown as converted land and 72 Ares as paddy land. The petitioners in both the writ petitions therefore submitted applications to remove the land from Data Bank.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 14 :
the Kayal is protruding inside the property; that there is a Thodu in the property with water flow; that some portion of the land is marshy and waterlogged, which is suitable for Pokkali cultivation and that small types of trees growing on water, bush trees and grass were seen. These findings and reasons have to be compared with earlier conclusions arrived at by various statutory authorities and have to be assessed for their sustainability based on the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder and the law laid down by this Court in various judgments having presidential value.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 15 :
conversion is warranted in respect of the land. In spite of the afore findings, when Draft Data Bank was prepared, the land of the petitioners were included in the Draft Data Bank with the remark that the land is converted and is having 30 years old coconut trees. When Data Bank was finally published, 70 Ares of land of the petitioners in WP(C) No.27200/2020 and 72 Ares of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021 were included as paddy land.
It is obvious from Ext.P12 KSREC Report that the land in question is predominantly under mixed vegetation/plantation with some waterlogged area and fallow land.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 16 :
waterlogged, some portion is marshy land and hence a survey is to be conducted before removing any portion of the land from Data Bank.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 17 :
the form of KSREC report, but the findings of the LLMC are not convincing. The clear finding in KSREC report is that the land is predominantly of mixed vegetation and plantation, with some portion being waterlogged and some fallow land. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector [2020 (2) KLT 192] that merely because property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the land, it cannot be termed as wet land or fallow land under the Act, 2008.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 18 :
canals. It is evident that for a fallow land to fall under the definition, such fallow land should be suitable for paddy cultivation. In the afore circumstances, in view of the categoric findings made in Exts.P4 to P7 and in the light of the conclusions of the KSREC, this Court is of the firm opinion that Ext.P18 proceedings of the LLMC cannot be sustained. Ext.P18 is therefore set aside. It is declared that the entire land of the petitioners in these writ petitions, in Survey No.801/1 in Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 4th respondent-LLMC to reconsider the applications of the petitioners strictly in the light of Exts.P4 to P8, Ext.P12 KSREC report and the findings of this Court contained hereinabove and take decision afresh within a period of one month.”
It is thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 19 :
appeals are preferred.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 20 :
single Judge failed to take note of the above vital points while deciding the case and that the declaration made by the learned single Judge that the entire land of the writ petitioners situated in survey No. 801/1 of Manakunnam village is liable to be excluded from the data bank is incorrect in law. It is further contended that the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat, categorically found that certain extent of land is suitable for pokkali cultivation; however, the learned single Judge opined that there are no experts in the Local Level Monitoring Committee to come to such a conclusion. Further, Act, 2008 has given the power to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to assess the ground reality and take appropriate decision for the inclusion of land in the data bank in the absence of any scientific data to conclude that the land is not suitable for pokkali cultivation and the learned single Judge ought not to have reached the conclusion that the land is uncultivable.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 21 :
apart, it is submitted that the land in question is an ecologically sensitive area, and to a certain extent of land which is identified as paddy land, there is a natural water channel flowing and the properties are lying contiguous to the Vembanad lake. Various other contentions are also raised to make an attempt to substantiate the contention that the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge is erroneous and therefore, interference is required.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 22 :
can be entered into taking into account Exts P4 to P7 reports of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and the District Collector, Ernakulam.
“paddy land” means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals;
field situated within the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year, but the paddy fields which are suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow are also treated as paddy lands. However, the contra contention made by the counsel for the writ petitioners/party respondents is that the reports clearly show that the portion of the properties in question can only be cultivated by providing infrastructure to the existing condition of the properties in question, and it was in that background only, the Officers have reported so, and for that matter, even the Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided to conduct measurement in order to identify
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 23 :
the properties which are shown as agricultural fallow.
nowhere in the report of the concerned officers, there is no such findings, which alone was relied upon by the learned single Judge to arrive at the conclusions and to declare that the properties in question are not paddy fields which are cultivable in nature.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 24 :
P4 letter dated 15.06.2007 addressed by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam to the Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur, it is stated that at present there is no paddy cultivation in the property in question and the land is remaining barren for approximately 12 years and the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, it is stated that if the basic infrastructure developments are done, the land can be used for paddy cultivation, though it is reported that if the lands are filled up there are chances for environmental issues.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 25 :
the western boundary, there is a dry land and on the western side, kalathode is flowing.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 26 :
precautions for avoiding environmental issues, and by retaining trenches without obstructing natural water flow, permission can be granted for other agricultural operations.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 27 :
that can be cultivated with paddy. It was taking into account the reports and the background facts, the learned single Judge declared that the Local Level Monitoring Committee is not vested with powers to go behind the reports and identify as to whether a portion of the property can be suitably altered and then conduct paddy cultivation.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 28 :
growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. It is clear from the reports discussed above that, reports adverse to paddy cultivation were submitted by the competent officers, and it was thereupon that the findings were rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector prior to the coming into force of the Act, 2008.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 29 :
“filled up by reclamation, appears to be 30 years coconut trees planted”. Anyhow, when the final data bank was prepared, the property was included in the data bank.
W.A. No. 1539/2021& 37/2022 : 30 :
cultivation.
Needless to say, writ appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. However since the time period granted by the learned Single Judge has already expired, for compliance of the directions time is extended for a period of three weeks from today.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether land lying fallow for decades with mixed vegetation constitutes 'paddy land' under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Whether the Local Level Monitoring Committee can reject scientific reports to include land in the data bank based on hypothetical cultivability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District CollectorRelied on¶28
Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector [2020 (2) KLT 192]
Lalu P.S. v. State of KeralaRelied on¶29
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC 490]
Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional OfficerRelied on¶29
Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2021 (1) KLT 433]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shymon.M.P.
T. G. Sunil
Reena Sunil
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Agricultural Officer
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
