Paddy Land Act | Authority Must Consider Feasibility Of Paddy Cultivation While Deciding Plea To Delete Property From Data Bank: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a Form-5 application under Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 is considered by the competent authority for exclusion of certain land from the Data Bank, the predominant factor for consideration ought to be whether the land is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 

"In very small plots of land which are surrounded by commercial or residential buildings, though such land is described as paddy land in the revenue records and though it may be technically possible to cultivate the land with paddy, still such cultivation will not be ordinarily possible and financially feasible. In the case of lands having any extent, the factor whether there are proper irrigation facilities making the land suitable for paddy cultivation would be important. Even if the land is of a comparatively larger extent, if there are no irrigation and other requisite facilities, it cannot be said that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, merely because it was once cultivated with paddy and it is described as paddy land in revenue records," Justice Nagaresh observed. 

The petitioner, who is the owner of 68.78 Acres of land, was aggrived that her property was included in the Data Bank, when she wanted to use it for other purposes. The petitioner averred that the land stood converted prior to the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted, and that the land was presently in the nature of 'purayidom'. 

The petitioner alleged that if the Revenue Divisional Officer had any doubt as regards the nature of the land as a 'purayidom', the said authority ought to have ordered to obtain scientific data as provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to ascertain the nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008. The petitioner submitted that in the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer had rejected her Form-5 application for exclusion of her land from the Data Bank in order to use it for other purposes, based on a report of the Agricultural Officer. The petitioner alleged that such order had been passed without conducting a Site inspection or by his mind while passing the impugned order. 

The petitioner submitted that if the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was allowed to stand, it would affect her constitutional right to freely enjoy her land. 

The Senior Government Pleader Deepa Narayanan however countered the petitioner's arguments and submitted that when the petitioner submitted Form-5 application to remove land from Data Bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer had sought a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of the LLMC. The Counsel submitted that it was on the basis of the findings of the LLMC that the Agricultural Officer submitted the report on the basis of the Site inspection, recommending the land not to be removed from the Data Bank as it would defeat the very purpose of the Act, 2008. The Agricultural Officer had stated that if the petitioner's land was permitted to be converted, the same would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the nearby area, due to which it had to be retained in the Data Bank. 

The Court took note that the LLMC's finding that there were 60 coconut trees of the age of 20 years and above, and a further finding that the land had been converted prior to the year 2008. The Monitoring Committee further noted the presence of certain water chals and opined that the change of nature of the petitioner's land may adversely affect the nearby paddy land.

The Court in this case was faced with the question as to whether the existence of water chals in the property ought to be the prime consideration in deciding whether the land is to be retained in the Data Bank.

The Court thus, at the outset perused provisions of the Act, 2008, and the Rules made thereunder with respect to preparation of Data Bank. 

The Court took note that while the Act, 2008 had been enacted in public interest to provide for the conservation of paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation to promote agricultural growth, the statute is not intended for environmental protection as a whole. 

"Sustaining the ecological system contemplated by the Act, 2008 is for the purpose of sustaining paddy land and wetland. The preamble itself permits restrictive conversion of paddy land and wetland," the Court noted. 

The Court thus observed that the predominant factor for consideration ought to be whether the land sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 

The Court took note of the LLMC's opinion that although the land had been converted prior to 2008, any further activity in the land would be likely to adversely affect paddy cultivation in the nearby areas.

The Court stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the Form-5 application of the petitioner merely by accepting contention of the Agricultural Field Officer in spite of the 'ample evidence' to establish that the land had been converted prior to 2008. 

"From the minutes of the LLMC, it is seen that the Committee has noted that there are water chals where water was found. Neither the LLMC nor the Agricultural Officer has stated that these water chals are connected to the nearby paddy fields or that the water chals in the petitioner's property is indispensable for irrigation of paddy fields in the nearby area. n short, a decision has been taken by the RDO to reject the Form-5 application of the petitioner without a finding that it is feasible and viable to cultivate the land of the petitioner with paddy. The RDO has passed the order without any cogent evidence to conclude that the water chals found in the petitioner's land are indispensable for paddy cultivation in the nearby areas. For all the afore reasons, I find that Ext.P7 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal and unsustainable," the Court held. 

It thereby set aside the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and directed the said authority to reconsider the Form-5 application of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates V.M. Krishnakumar and P.S. Sidharthan

Counsel for the Respondent: Senior Government Pleader Deepa Narayanan, Standing Counsel for Kodungalloor Municipality Noushad K.A., and Advocate Amrin Fathima

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 488

Case Title: Aparna Sasi Menon v. The Revenue Divisional Officer 

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7513 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment