Shinila P.C vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 3946 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shinila P.C vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2025

                                                2025:KER:11750
WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

                                 1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

                      TH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 12        DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA,

                                1946

                  WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SHINILA P.C.,
          AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SATHYAN ,
          RESIDING AT PARACHALIL HOUSE, PUNNASSERI P.O,
          KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673585


          BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM,
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

    3     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
          ERNAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
                                                2025:KER:11750
WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

                            2


    4     DEPUTY COLLECTOR( REVENUE RECOVERY),
          CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
          PIN - 673020

    5     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673619

    6     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHIBHAVAN, KAKKUR, KAKKUR P.O.,
          PIN - 673613

          BY ADV.

          SMT.AMMINIKUTTY.K, SR.G.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:11750
WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

                                  3


                                                              C.R.

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having

an extent of 9.51 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.77/22 in Block

No.4 of Kakkur Village in Kozhikode Taluk. According to the

petitioner, even though the said property described as "paddy

land" in the Revenue records, it was reclaimed much prior to the

enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'). It is

averred that, there is a residential building in the said property and

trees are also standing there. Despite the above, the said property

was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of

the Paddy Land Act.

2. In such circumstances, an application was submitted

for removing the same from the Data Bank, and while processing

the said application, the Ext.P2 report was submitted by the LLMC 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

after conducting the physical inspection of the property. In the

said report, it was found that a residential building is in existence

in the said property and there are trees as well. On the basis of the

above, a recommendation was made by the LLMC to remove the

property from the Data Bank. Besides, it was specifically

mentioned in Ext.P2 report that, the conversion of the land did not

affect the natural water flow as well. Acting upon Ext.P2, the entire

extent of property was removed from the Data Bank and the

notification issued in this regard is Ext.P1.

3. Later, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6

for classifying the property as dry land in the Revenue records.

However, the said application was rejected by the 3 rd respondent

as per Ext.P5 order. Challenging the same, an appeal was

submitted before the 2nd respondent and that culminated in Ext.P9,

by which the appeal was dismissed confirming Ext.P5 order. This

writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, challenging

Ext.P5 and P9 orders passed by the respondents 3 and 2 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

respectively.

4. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 4 th

respondent. It is averred in the said counter affidavit that, as per

the report of the Village Officer, only 4.04 Ares of land from the

whole applied land was seen converted, and in the remaining area

of land, trees are seen growing, and there are water logging in the

said property. It was further averred that, some trenches exists

amidst the trees and due to the nearby pond, water logging can be

seen in the pond during heavy rains. In such circumstances, the

4th respondent sought the dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri.Unni K.K., learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government

Pleader for the respondents.

6. The specific challenge raised by the learned Counsel

for the petitioner is against the reasons which prompted the

respondents 3 and 2 to pass Exts.P5 and P9 orders respectively,

rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6. On 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

going through Ext.P5, which was confirmed as per Ext.P9, the

main reason mentioned in the said order is that the entire extent of

property is not seen converted prior to the enactment of Paddy

Land Act. Yet another reason highlighted is that, there is water

logging in the said property.

7. As far as the first reason mentioned in the impugned

order is concerned, namely, the entire extent of property was not

converted, I am of the view that, the same cannot be accepted.

This is particularly because, in this case, the property was

excluded from the Data Bank, as per Ext.P1 notification, after

conducting a legal procedure contemplated under the Act, which

includes an inquiry as to the nature of the property. Evidently,

Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the LLMC, wherein it is

specifically found that, the property is liable to be excluded from

the Data Bank. Besides, a specific finding was also entered into in

Ext.P2 to the effect that, the conversion would not affect the

natural flow of water. Ext.P1, is apparently issued, by removing 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, being convinced

that the property of the petitioner is no longer having the

characteristics and features of a paddy land. Thus, as far as the

question as to whether the property is a "paddy land" as defined

under Section 2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act is concerned, it stood

answered, the moment the property was permitted to be removed

from the Data Bank by issuing a statutory notification in the form of

Ext.P1.

8. In George Varghese v. District Collector, 2023 (7)

KHC 93, this Court has categorically held in paragraph 5, that-;

"........ A perusal of the Act and the Rules, 2008

reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained

by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application

seeking permission to change the nature of the

unnotified land is whether such change of nature of

land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby

paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other

crops, if any, in the adjoining land....."

Therefore, once a conclusion is arrived at and the property is

removed from the Data Bank, it was not possible for the

respondents 2 and 3 to reagitate the issue when processing

an application in Form 6.

9. Apparently, one of the prime reasons which

prompted the respondents 2 and 3 to reject the application

was that the entire extent of property was not seen

converted prior to the enactment of Paddy Land Act.

Evidently, the said finding was entered into on the basis of

the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer and the

Village officer concerned subsequently, during the

processing of the Form 6 application as well as the appeal

submitted by the petitioner. However, as observed above,

since the question of the nature of the property and as to

whether the property was converted prior to the enactment 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

of the Paddy Land Act, was a question already concluded by

the issuance of Ext.P1 notification excluding the property

from the Data Bank, the said issue could not have been

brought into the zone of consideration of the respondents 2

and 3, while invoking their powers under Section 27A of the

Paddy Land Act.

10. As far as the scope of consideration of an application

in Form 6, which is submitted under Section 27A of the Act is

concerned, the matters to be looked into are specifically

mentioned under the said provision, which do not include the

nature of the property, in the manner as required for considering

an application in Form 5. Section 27A reads as follows:

"27A. Change of nature of unnotified land.- (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:

Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

(3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may prescribed:

Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.

(4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation:

                                                       2025:KER:11750
WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024






                  Provided that in specifying such water
          conservancy      measures,      the    Revenue

Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies.

(5) No permission under this section shall be necessary where the purpose for which the unnotified land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilized or attempted to be utilized is for paddy cultivation.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), no permission under this section shall be necessary for constructing a residential building having a maximum area of 120 square meters in a maximum extent of 4.04 ares of land or a commercial building having a maximum area of 40 square meters in a maximum extent of 2.02 ares of land:

Provided that the construction of a housing complex or complexes or flats or multi- storied residential complexes shall not come within the meaning of residential building specified in this sub-section:

Provided further that this exemption shall be granted only once.

(7) The exemption under sub-

section (6) shall be applicable only to owners of unnotified lands under the Kerala 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018:

Provided that if the area of the residential building or commercial building exempted under sub-section (6) is subsequently increased by new extension, the exemption under sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the owner of the land as on the date of detection of the new extension shall be liable to pay fee as per sub-section (3).

(8) Where conversion of an unnotified land is required for any public purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall submit a report to Government outlining the measures to be adopted to ensure that the reclamation shall not disrupt the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, and shall suggest such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure this.

(9) The Government may, on receipt of a report under sub-section (8), issue permission to reclaim unnotified land for public purpose:

Provided that where permission is granted, the Government may make necessary modifications to the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer as deemed fit:

Provided further that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

measures.

(10) The order issued under sub-

section (2) and (9) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the lands and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded, the extent of the land in which water conservancy measures are to be adopted by the applicant and a sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order.

(11) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, either suo motu or on the application of any aggrieved party, cancel any order issued under sub-section (2) if the conditions specified in the order issued therein are not complied by the applicant, either fully or partially.

(12) No order of cancellation under sub-section (11) shall be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer unless the applicant thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(13) Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act."

11. Subsections 2 and 4 of Section 27A clearly indicate the 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

nature of the inquiry that has to be conducted while passing an

order on Form 6 application. Subsection 2 contemplates that, the

Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass such orders as deem fit and

proper, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water

to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water

conservancy measures as is deemed necessary. Similarly,

Subsection 4 of Section 27A further contemplates that, if an

application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall

ensure that the reclamation of unnotified land shall not adversely

affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the

adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures

as is necessary to ensure such cultivation.

12. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that, Subsection 4

starts with the words "if the application is allowed.." . This would

mean that, once the application is allowed, it is the obligation on

the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure that the

reclamation of the land is not adversely affecting the cultivation of 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands and shall specify

such water conservancy measures as is necessary. Therefore,

while conducting an inquiry for an application under Section 27A,

the scope of such inquiry is confined to the question as to whether

the said reclamation would result in disruption to free flow of water

to the neighbouring paddy lands or would it affect the cultivation of

paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining lands as held by

this Court in George Varghese ( Supra) , as well as in Nikkie

Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,

Muvattupuzha,2024 (2) KLT 296.

13. It is the general rule of interpretation that , if a statute

enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else

must necessarily, and by implication, be excluded from its

operation and effect, can be rightly found in the maxim "expressio

unius est exclusio alterius". it is a settled legal position of law

that a statutory body must act within the framework of the statute 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

and cannot travel beyond the statute. One individual can do all

things save and except those, which are prohibited under the law,

whereas the Statutory Body only can do anything as are

prescribed within the jurisdictional parameters or control of the

concerned statute as held in the cases of K. Ramadas Shenoy v.

Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi, (1974) 2 SCC

506, Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) By LRs and others v.

Govind Joti Chavare and others, (1975) 1 SCC 559, J.N.

Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, (1996) 9 SCC 495, Meera Sahni

v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177, Union of India v.

International Trading Company, (2003) 5 SCC 437, Ramdeen

Mayurya v. State of UP and others, (2009) 6 SCC 735.

14. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill

Private Limited , (2003) 2 SCC 111, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

affirmed that -;

"......It is well settled that when a statutory authority is 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be

done in that manner or not at all. The State and other

authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of

statute. They must act within the four corners thereof."

15. Thus, in the context of an inquiry under Section 27A,

the scope is clearly limited to determining whether the reclamation

would disrupt the free flow of water to neighbouring paddy lands or

affect the cultivation of paddy or other crops in the adjoining lands.

However, in this case, the statutory authorities went beyond what

is permitted. Subsections 2 and 4 of Section 27A outlines the

nature of the inquiry to be conducted when passing an order on a

Form 6 application. In this regard it is relevant to note that, from

the language used in subsections (2) and (4) of section 27A, it can

be seen that, the focus is on the disruption of water flow or

adverse impact on the paddy and other crops on the "neighbouring

paddy lands" or "adjoining land". To be precise, subsection (2) of 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

section 27A contains the expression "neighbouring paddy land" ,

whereas, what is referred to in subsection (4) thereof is, "adjoining

land". Thus the obligation of the officer concerned, while

considering an application in this regard, is to find out the impact

on such properties lying adjoining or on the neighbourhood of the

property sought to converted. Therefore, the decision must be

based on the impact on such neighbouring or adjoining lands, and

not strictly based on the nature of the land sought to be classified

as dry land per se. In other words, even though, the nature of

property may have some relevance, that is not the sole criteria for

section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, but it is mainly on the impact

of its reclamation on the neighbouring paddy land or the paddy

cultivation or other crops in the adjoining land.

16. On carefully going through the contents of Section

27A, it can be seen that, beyond those aspects, no other matters

including the question as to whether the property was converted 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

prior to 2008, would come within the scope of such enquiry.

17. Even while considering the question whether there is

any disruption to the free flow of water or whether it will adversely

affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, that by itself

cannot be a reason to reject the application outrightly, without

exploring the possibilities of finding out the measures to ensure

that no such disruption or adverse impacts are arising from such

conversion. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for the competent

authority to explore such possibilities before rejecting the

application.

18. As far as the impugned orders in this case are

concerned, it is evident therefrom that, no such exercise has been

carried out while rejecting the said application. The conclusions

were arrived firstly, on the ground that the entire extent of property

was not seen converted, which I have already held that, it was not

open for consideration in the said application and secondly, there

was water logging in the said property. While considering the said 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

question, the Ext P2 report has some relevance. In Ext.P2, the

question as to whether the reclamation of the property is affecting

the free flow of water was specifically considered and the report on

the said question in the said proforma, is to the effect that it is not

affecting the free flow. The said finding cannot be ignored, while

considering the challenge raised by the petitioner against the

impugned orders. Of course, it is true that, in the counter affidavit

submitted by the 4th respondent, it is mentioned that there are

trenches in the property amidst the trees and due to the nearby

pond, there is water logging in the plot during heavy rains.

However, I do not think that the said reason could be a ground to

reject the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6. Merely

because there is water logging in the property, it need not be

ordered to be retained as paddy land or wetland in the revenue

records, once the competent authority, under the Act, after

following the procedure, removed the said property from the data

bank. Unless there is a finding that the reclamation of the property 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

results in disruption of water flow to the adjoining paddy field or it

otherwise adversely affects the paddy cultivation or any other

crops, the application submitted in Form 6 cannot be rejected by

merely acting upon the report of the Field Officers concerned to

the effect that, there is water logging in the property during heavy

rainy season. Water logging in rainy season is a common

phenomenon and it is quite natural that, properties which are low-

lying get immersed under water. That can occur due to various

reasons, such as lack of drainage facility, inadequacy of drainage

facility, close proximity to river, lakes, water channel etc and all

those reasons need not lead to the consequences referred to in

subsection (2) and (4) of section 27A in all circumstances.

19. Moreover, in this case, as far as the impact of the

reclamation on the free flow of water is concerned, there is already

a report, as evidenced by Ext.P2, where it was found that it would

not affect the free flow of water. In such circumstances, I do not

find any legally sustainable grounds to uphold the Ext.P5 order 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

passed by the 3rd respondent and the Ext.P9 order passed by the

District Collector confirming Ext.P5. Thus, the application of the

petitioner has to be allowed, in view of Ext.P2 report, which is a

crucial document. Besides, in Ext.P5 itself, the report of the Village

Officer is also to the effect that, the reclamation will not affect the

paddy cultivation in the nearby property.

20. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader

reiterated that, in Ext.P5, after referring to the report of the Village

Officer, it was observed that the entire extent of property was not

converted. However, I have already held that, that question is

beyond the scope of an inquiry contemplated for considering an

application in Form 6. In case the exclusion of the property from

the Data Bank itself was erroneous, it is for the authorities

concerned to initiate appropriate proceedings independently, and

such proceedings cannot form part of an inquiry contemplated

under Section 27A of the Act, as the said proceedings are not

intended to or empower the officers concerned to undo the 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

findings on the Form 5 application.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

quashing Exts.P5 and P9, holding that, the property of the

petitioner is entitled to be classified as dry land, under Section 27A

of the Paddy Land Act. Accordingly, it is directed that, the 4 th

respondent, the authorized officer under Section Section 2(xvA) of

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,

shall pass necessary orders on Form 6 application submitted by

the petitioner in the light of the observation made by this Court.

Such orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2025:KER:11750 WP(C) NO. 33803 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33803/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 30.9.2020 BY THE KAKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 20.5.2022 IN W.P[C] NO.16412/2022

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 IN W.P[C] NO.40740/2022

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 IN CONT.CASE(CIVIL)

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 26.12.2022 WITH RECEIPT DATED 28.12.2022

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 24.11.2023 IN W.P[C] NO.36476/2023

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT