Petitioners granted Section 9 permission to reclaim paddy land for a residence sought Form 6 change of user to commercial use; rejection upheld. Court held Section 9 is a one-time specific-purpose permission and allowing conversion would defeat the Act's object and violate its prohibition under Section 3.
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. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 42400 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.M/S.KRISHNA PRASAD. S, SINDHU S KAMATH, SWAPNA S.K., ROHINI NAIR & SURAJ KUMAR D.
RESPONDENTS:
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
..2..
BY ADVS.M/S.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN, T.M.KHALID & K.P.SUSMITHA FOR R6
SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
..3..
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
========================================
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
========================================
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2024
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners had applied for permission under Section 9
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (for short, the Act and the Rules) for the reclamation of
paddy land for the construction of a residential building.
Section 9 is extracted below:
“ 9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee._ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision:
Provided that the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04
..4..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be.
(2) The District Level Authorised Committee shall consist of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Principal Agricultural Officer and three paddy cultivators to be nominated by the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be its Chairman and the Principal Agricultural Officer, shall be its Convenor:
Provided that where three are more than one Revenue Divisional Officer in a District, the Collector shall nominate one among them to the District Level Authorised Committee.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that –
iii.the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and
(9) The order issued by the District Level Authorised Committee
..5..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
under sub-section (5) or the District Collector issued under sub-section (7) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the land and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded and a sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order.”
..6..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
permission is for a reclamation amidst the adjoining paddy lands for a specific purpose.
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
sustained as the same is violative of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 as well as Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He also relies on the judgment of this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] which held that, while considering a Form 6 application, the question to be decided is whether such change of nature of land affects the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that, such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land.
has been granted to the petitioners under Section 9 for
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
reclaiming the paddy land for the construction of a residential building subject to the statutory conditions even specifying the extent of land and also, that the reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy and other statutory conditions. It is on the petitioners satisfying the above conditions that Ext.P2 order was passed. On such conditional permission being granted and the petitioners complying with the terms thereof, they could not have made an application under Form 6 for putting it to commercial use. The reason stated in Ext.P7, that, for the subject property, permission has been granted under Section 9 for a onetime user and that too, for putting up a residence, cannot be faulted. The judgment cited by the petitioners does not apply to a case where permission has been granted under Section 9 and where subsequently, he applies Form 6 for putting it into commercial use. The petitioners also submitted that after the introduction of Section 27A, all orders passed even under the Act
..9..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
stand obliterated, because of the non-obstante clause. The said contention cannot be accepted as the petitioners were granted permission under Section 9 for a specific purpose, subject to the conditions made under Section, as stated earlier.
..10..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
nature of the land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields. When permission is granted under Section 9, after holding that such reclamation shall not affect the ecological condition and cultivation of the adjoining paddy land, if permission is granted under Form 6, to change the nature of the land, the same goes against Section 3 which is a prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy lands. The very object of the Act, namely, to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system, will be defeated if a person who is granted permission under Section 9 for the purposes mentioned above is allowed to change the user to commercial purposes, besides resulting in misuse of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
that rejected the request of the petitioners under Form 6 on account of the passing of Ext.P2 order under Section 9 of the Act.
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
..11..
I do not find any ground to suggest that Ext.P7 order is illegal or against the terms of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules.
The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. ,
JUDGE
MMG
..12..
W. P. (C) No. 42400 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.42400/2022
| PETITIO | NERS' | EXHIBIT | S: |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P1 | A TRUE PROPERT |
COPY OF THE ENTRIES OF PETITIONER'S Y IN THE DATA BANK DATED 24-03-2012. |
| EXHIBIT | P2 | A TRUE RESPOND PETITIO |
COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH ENT ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE NER HEREIN DATED 26-09-2014. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 | A TRUE DATED 2 |
COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE 7-01-2022. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 | A TRUE BY THE |
COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT PAID PETITIONERS DATED 27-01-2022. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 | A TRUE BEFORE |
COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 06-03-2019. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 | A TRUE BY THE DATED 0 |
COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT 3-08-2019. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 | A TRUE FROM T 05-2022 |
COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED HE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE DATED 16- . |
| EXHIBIT | P8 | A TRUE RESPOND |
COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH ENT'S OFFICE DATED 25-09-2021. |
| EXHIBIT | P9 | A TRUE THE BRO 03-2022 |
COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02- . |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Form 6 application for change of user from residential to commercial can be allowed where permission was granted under Section 9 only for constructing a residence.
Whether Section 27A obliterates conditional orders passed under Section 9 of the 2008 Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subeesh K. R. v. Nadathara Grama Panchayat & Ors.Distinguished
2019 (5) KHC 725
George Varghese v. District CollectorDistinguished
2023 (7) KHC 93
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Blessy Boban
Sijo Paulose
The Village Officer, Kanjirangadu Village Office
The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thondernad Grama Panchayat
The District Collector, Wayanad
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mananthavady
Mohammed Nias C.P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
