[Kerala Wetland Act] Property Cannot Be Termed 'Paddy Land' For Sole Reason That It Is Lying Fallow: High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that a property cannot be termed as paddy land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for the sole reason that property is lying as fallow.

The court observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer must also be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation apart from it being fallow, for it to fall under the category of paddy land under the 2008 Act.

A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham observed that:

“Going by the definition in Section 2(xii) of “paddy land” in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008.”

The court made specific reference to the decision in Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam, [2020 (2) KHC 94], which held that just because the property is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as paddy land under the 2008 Act.

The petitioner in this case had approached the court after his application under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Rules 2008 to delete his property from the land data bank was rejected.

The case of the petitioner was that his property is garden land and not paddy land. It is situated in a residential area, surrounded by houses and a road and has been wrongly categorised as paddy land in the data bank according to the petitioner. The reason given for rejecting his application was that his property was lying fallow and there was paddy cultivation in the vicinity and converting the property into garden land would affect the flow of water in the area.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that no site inspection was conducted and no report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) was obtained by the Revenue Divisional Officer before rejecting the petitioner’s application.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee(LLMC) had visited the property and from its appearance it was concluded that the property was paddy land.

The court observed that it is settled law that the character and fitness of the land, as on August 12, 2008, the date the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, came into force, is what is considered when deciding whether to include or exclude the land from the data bank.The case of the petitioner was that the absence of a site inspection or report from KSREC his application ought not to have been rejected. The court referred to the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] where it was held that if the material available is not satisfactory, the authority should make use of scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC to ascertain the character of the land.

The court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s application without ascertaining the property’s character and fitness as on 12.08.2008 and without a site inspection or report of the KSREC, is arbitrary and unjust. In light of the above, the application of the petitioner was directed to be considered afresh.

Case Title: Sudheesh.U V The Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

Click here to read/download judgment