Persons Who Purchased A Portion Of Paddy Land After Commencement Of Act Can't Reclaim It For Residential Use: Kerala High Court Overrules Earlier Precedent

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that owners of a portion of a paddy field who purchased it after the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not entitled to reclaim it for the purpose of residential use. 

As such, a Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P Chaly and Justice Sathish Ninan overturned the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33].

"we are of the considered opinion that the owner of the paddy land who is entitled to seek conversion or reclamation in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 2008, is the owner of the paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 i.e., 12.08.2008."

The Court added that merely because a bit of paddy land is purchased by a person, subsequent to the Act, that will not preclude him to utilise it for paddy cultivation, and there is no prohibition or other inhibitions created under the Act detaining him from carrying on with paddy cultivation.

"Therefore, the purchaser of a bit of paddy land, subsequent to the introduction of the Act, 2008, would definitely be an owner of a paddy land, but he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 5(3) r/w Section 9 of the Act, 2008."

The petitioners were purchasers of a bit of paddy land from the original owners of the paddy land, claiming the benefit of the decision in Yousuf Chalil (supra) which had held otherwise. The batch of petitions was referred to the Full Bench by a Single Judge to ascertain the accuracy of the said decision.

The basic question involved in all these writ petitions was whether a person, who purchased a bit of paddy land after the commencement of the Act is entitled to prefer an application under Section 5(3)(i) r/w Section 9 for permission to reclaim the same, for construction of a residential building.

Section 3 states that after the introduction of the Act, no owner, occupier or person in custody of any paddy land can undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land. However, as per Section 5(3)(1), a Local Level Monitoring Committee can recommend to the District Level Authorized Committee to allow reclamation of paddy land for its owner to construct a residential building. 

The question here was whether the term 'owner' could also be an owner of a bit of paddy land purchased after the coming into force of the Act.

Evolution of Judicial Precedents 

In Thankachan v. District Collector [2017 (3) KLT 35], a Single Judge had held that this exemption was granted to provide the cultivators with a residence within his cultivable paddy land.

However, if a purchaser of a bit of paddy land is permitted to apply for reclamation, it could lead to gross misuse, since, then, a large extent of paddy land could be fragmented into small plots and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption.

But this position was overturned in 2019 through the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil (supra), it is for the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the application preferred by the petitioner since there is no express prohibition contained in the Act.

It was therefore held that applications filed by the purchasers of a bit of paddy land, for reclamation for construction of a residential building, after the coming into force of Act, 2008 are also liable to be considered by the statutory authorities. 

This position was affirmed by another Single Bench in K Murali v State of Kerala.

Decision

The Court noted that the Act was introduced to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State.

Therefore, upon perusal of all relevant material, the Full Bench concluded that the expression 'owner of a paddy field' has to be given a purposive and literal interpretation, since it is with the object of protecting the paddy fields from being reclaimed and used for other purposes, the Act, 2008 was introduced.

"In our view, if any other interpretation is given to the word 'owner', it would clearly defeat the natural and ordinary sense intended by the framers of law to it. Therefore, the term 'owner' contained under the provisions would have to be given a strict interpretation insofar as the undertaking of any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land is concerned as contemplated under the aforementioned provisions."

Moreover, it was emphasised that even for an original owner of paddy land, the permission for reclamation in contemplation of Section 5(3) r/w Section 9 is not absolute, which makes it clear that the provisions of Sections 3, 5(3) and 9 would have to be given the utmost strict interpretation insofar as the 'owner' of the paddy land specified thereunder is concerned.

As such, it was held that the decision rendered by the single Judge in Thankachan (supra) that a purchaser of a bit of paddy land after the coming into force of Act is not entitled to seek reclamation of the paddy land for construction of a residential building is the correct law, and the judgment of the Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil (supra) is not.

Although ideally, the petitions should have been sent back to the Single Judge for appropriate consideration, since most of the petitioners were purchasers of a part of paddy land after the 2008 Act came into force, the Court found that it would serve no purpose. Therefore, all such writ petitions were dismissed.

One of the petitions was allowed since the petitioner was the beneficiary of a settlement deed executed between the legal heirs of a deceased owner of paddy land and the owner of the land had to be ascertained. 

Advocates N. Raghuraj, C. S. Manilal, Unni K.K appeared for the petitioners while the State was represented by Special Government Pleader S. Ranjit.

Case Title: Sabeena E.K v. District Collector & connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment