Kerala High Court
Premaraj M.K vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41003 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
PREMARAJ M.K.,
AGED 53 YEARS
SON OF KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHUPPARAMBATH
HOUSE, P.O., RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673633
BY ADVS.
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
S.M.PRASANTH
T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 676633
4 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE RAMANATTUKARA
MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 673633
5 THE KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD,
2DIL¬_FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
2025:KER:21104
W.P.(C)No.41003/2023 2
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 695001
6 THE IMPACT KERALA LIMITED (INVESTMENT IN MUNICIPAL AND
PANCHAYAT ASSET CREATION FOR TRANSFORMATION KERALA
LIMITED)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR 2ND FLOOR,
MUNICIPAL HOUSE BUILDING, NEAR CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
7 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NH 212, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
8 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED SHAH, SC, RAMANATTUKARA
MUNICIPALITY
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K. , SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON 27.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:21104
W.P.(C)No.41003/2023 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by a construction carried out by
the Ramanattukara Municipality in the property having an extent
of 41.442 Ares comprised in Re-survey Nos.295/2 and 2961A1 of
Ramanattukara Village. According to the petitioner, the property
where the construction is being carried out by the Municipality is
a 'paddy land' as defined under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 in which the
construction is not permissible. As no proper orders are obtained
from the competent authorities to enable them to carry out such
construction, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To declare that the construction of the Municipal building in
lands bearing R.S No. 29512 and 296/ AL of Ramanattukara
Village in Kozhikode District is totally illegal and made in
contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act and therefore, liable to be deiclared bad,
illegal and forthwith demolished;
ii) To declare that the construction of a building in a paddy and
wetland without obtaining permission and adversely affecting the
environment, air and atmosphere is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India;
iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to
immediately stop the construction of the building by the
Ramanattukara Municipality in the lands bearing R.S. No. 295/2
2025:KER:21104
and 296lA1 of Ramanattukara Village in Kozhikode District as the
safie is not in public lnterest and utterly malafide and will cause
financial loss to the public
iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4
to immediately demolish the construction of the building so far
made, which is an illegal construction, forthwith ;
v) To dispense with the production of English translation of
vernacular documents;
vi) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case."
2. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 3rd respondent-
Municipality opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
According to the 3rd respondent, they are constructing an office
building for the Municipality, which is a project undertaken and
financed by the Government of Kerala through KIFBI. The said
project comes under the "public purpose" as defined under
Section 2(xiv) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'). All
necessary permits to carry out the construction were obtained by
the Municipality and on the strength of the same, the
construction is already carried out.
3. An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the 3 rd
respondent in which, certain documents were also produced to
2025:KER:21104
show that, a decision was taken by the Local Level Monitoring
Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'LLMC') to remove the
property from the data bank as evidenced by Ext.R3(A) and on
the basis of the said decision, a notification was published as
evidenced by Ext.R3(B) after removing the property from the
data bank. Exhibit R3(C) is the document evidencing the
sanctioning of sufficient amount, to construct the building in
question on the said property, set apart from the Special
Investment Scheme for the construction of building/facilities
through a special Agency.
4. A reply affidavit was also submitted to the counter
affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent by the petitioner. The 7 th
respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein, it is averred that, on
the basis of an application submitted by the Municipality before
the Sub Collector, Kozhikode for conversion of an extent of
41.422 Ares of land in Re-survey No.295/2, 296/1A1 in
Ramanattukara Village for building construction, the Sub
Collector, Kozhikode had submitted a report to the Government
2025:KER:21104
stating that, by conversion of this land there would not be any
obstruction to the smooth flow of water to the adjacent paddy
fields. Based on the above report, Agricultural (NCA) Department
has issued G.O. (RT) No.124/2022/Agri dated 16.02.2022, which
is produced as Ext.P4, granting sanction for conversion of the
said property under section 27(A)(9) of Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act. It is further averred that, on the
basis of the said order, the Municipal Secretary, Ramanattukara
submitted Form A before the 7 th respondent for making necessary
changes in the revenue records of this land. When seeking legal
advise of the matter, the District Law Officer, Kozhikode opined
that, since the order was issued by Agricultural (NCA)
Department and land conversion as well as changes in sub
division of land are related to Revenue Department, an order
from Revenue Department is essential in this case, otherwise it
will lead to many problems in future regarding conversion of land,
subdivision of land etc. For that reason, the said matter is now
pending consideration.
5. Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Advocate
2025:KER:21104
for the petitioner, Sri. P.A. Muhammed Shah, the learned
Standing Counsel for the Municipality and Smt. Amminikutty, the
learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
6. The main challenge raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is that, the construction being carried
out by the Municipality in the said property, is in violation of the
provisions contained in the Paddy Land Act and it is an admitted
fact that the property where the construction being carried out,
was a paddy land, originally included in the data bank and in the
revenue records the same is described as such. The learned
Senior counsel brought the attention of this Court the definition
of "paddy land" as contained in Section 2(xii), prohibition on
conversion or reclamation of paddy land as contemplated under
section 3 and section 11, and various other provisions relating to
the procedure to be followed in the matter of
reclamation/conversion. According to the learned Senior counsel,
from the documents itself, it is evident that, the property is a
paddy land and, therefore, the Municipality could not have carried
2025:KER:21104
out any construction on the said property. The said contention
was stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent.
7. After carefully going through the materials placed on
record and hearing the counsels on either side, I find that the
relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reasons
hereinafter mentioned. Of course, it is true that, the property was
included as paddy land in the data bank originally prepared by
the authorities concerned. It is discernible from Annexure R3(A)
that, on the basis of the application submitted by the
Municipality, the Local Level Monitoring Committee had taken a
decision as early as on 13.11.2018, to remove the property from
the data bank. From the contents of Ext.R3(A), it is evident that
such a decision was taken after conducting an inquiry by LLMC by
physically verifying the same, and they were convinced that the
property is not liable to be included in the data bank either as a
"paddy land" or as a "wetland". On the basis of the decision taken
by the LLMC, a notification was issued as early as on 07.02.2020
2025:KER:21104
vide Ext.R3(B) after removing the property of the petitioner from
the data bank. As far as the restriction contained in Sections 3
and 11 of the Paddy Land Act are concerned, the same are
applicable only in respect of the properties included in the data
bank, either as a paddy land or as a wetland.
8. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel is that, the fact that, the property was originally included
in the data bank itself would indicate that, it is a property coming
within the definition of 'Paddy Land' under section 2(xii) of the
Paddy Land Act, therefore no construction should have been
made. However, it is to be noted that, as per the provisions of the
Act, the LLMC is empowered to remove the property which is
wrongly included in the data bank either as a "paddy land" or as
a "wetland". In this case, even though the property was originally
included in the data bank, acting upon the application submitted
by the 3rd respondent, the LLMC had taken Ext R3 (A) decision
after being convinced of the fact that the entry of the property in
the data bank was erroneous. Such a decision was implemented
2025:KER:21104
by issuing a statutory notification as evidenced by Ext.R3(A). As
per Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Rules), the
notification of the data bank in relation to a local self government
institution has to be published by that Local Self Government
institution itself. In this case, on the basis of a decision so taken
by the LLMC as evidenced by Ext.R3(A), a statutory notification
was published by the Municipality which is the competent
authority in this regard. Therefore, the property which is a
subject matter of this writ petition, even though originally
included in the data bank, was removed from the data bank by
the competent authority by following the legal procedure in this
regard. Therefore, to that extent, there cannot be any illegality
in the matter of conversion of the property.
9. The next aspect to be considered is whether the mere fact
that the property was excluded from the data bank would enable
the Municipality to carry out construction on the property. It is to
be noted that, once the property was removed from the data
2025:KER:21104
bank, the said property would become an "unnotified land" as
defined under section 2(xviiA) of the Paddy Land Act which reads
as follows:
"["(xviiA) "unnotified land" means the lands within the area of
jurisdiction of the Committee which have been included as
paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in
Village Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland
under sub-section (4) of section 5 or where data bank has not
been published under the provisions of clause (i) of sub
section (4) of section 5, the lands which have already been
filled up on the date of commencement of this Act and are not
paddy land according to the report of the Kerala State Remote
Sensing Centre and the Local Level Monitoring Committee or
where the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre is
not available, lands which are not paddy land according to the
report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee"
10. Of course, section 14 of the Paddy Land Act
contemplates for prohibition in granting licence/permit for
carrying out any activity or construction on a paddy land or a
wetland or an unnotified land. However, section 27A
contemplates for the procedure to be followed to change the
nature of of unnotified land. As far as the 3 rd respondent is
concerned, the sub-section (8) of Section 27A is relevant, which
reads as follows:
"27A(8) : Where conversion of an unnotified land is required for
any public purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall submit
a report to the Government outlining the measures to be
2025:KER:21104
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."
11. As per the said provision, the conversion of an
unnotified land is permissible for public purpose and such
permission can be obtained on the basis of the report of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted to the Government,
outlining the measures to be adopted to ensure that the
reclamation would not disrupt the free flow of water to the
neighbouring paddy lands. Sub-section (9) of section 27A enables
the Government to issue permission to reclaim an unnotified land
for a public purpose upon receiving a report under sub-section
(8). As per the proviso to sub-section (9), if the area of such
parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.42
Ares, ten percent of such land is to be set apart for water
conservancy measures. Section 14 contemplates a prohibition for
carrying out construction on an unnotified land, whereas, section
27A deals with the change of nature of an unnotified land, and
sub-sections 8 and 9 referred to above specifically provide for the
2025:KER:21104
manner in which such conversion can be permitted for public
purpose.
12. In this regard, the expression 'public purpose' is also to
be considered which is contained in section 2(xiv) and it reads as
follows:
"2(xiv) "public purpose" means purposes [for the schemes and
projects] undertaken or financed by the Central - State
Governments, Government-Quasi-Government Institutions,
Local Self Government Institutions, [statutory bodies or other
schemes and projects] as may be specified by the Government
from time to time"
Thus, it is evident that, the public purpose means the purposes
for the schemes and projects undertaken or financed by the
Central - State Governments, Government - Quasi - Government
Institutions, Local Self Government Institutions, statutory bodies
or other schemes and projects as may be specified by the
Government from time to time. In this case, it is to be noted that
Ext.R3(C) is the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer of
KIFBI, which would indicate that, the construction carried out by
the 3rd respondent Municipality was under a scheme sponsored by
the Government. Admittedly, the proposed construction is for
2025:KER:21104
establishing an office building for a Municipality. Therefore, it is
evident that, the construction and the purpose of which the
construction is being carried out, are coming under the definition
of 'public purpose' as defined under section 2(xiv) of the
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
13. Exhibit P4 is a Government order issued invoking the
power under subsection 9 of Section 27A of Paddy Land Act. It is
evident from Ext.P4 that the same was issued under the
provisions referred to above, acting upon the report of the Sub
Collector and also the representatives of the District Collector as
well as Agricultural Officer. The contents of the same would
indicate that, the relevant aspects which ought to have been
taken into account while granting permission were considered
and since the extent of property is higher than 20.42 Ares of
land, 10% of the property was directed to be set apart for water
conservancy measures. Thus, it is evident that, the 3 rd
respondent has obtained a valid permission by virtue of Ext.P4
under subsections (8) and (9) of section 27A 8 of the Paddy Land
2025:KER:21104
Act, as the purpose for which the construction was being made
comes under the definition of 'public purpose' as defined under
section 2(xiv) of the Paddy Land Act.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
contends, by specifically highlighting the averments contained in
the 7th paragraph of Ext.P4 that, it is not a proper document
which confers any right to the Municipality to carry out the
construction in view of the fact that, the same was not obtained
with any concurrence from the Revenue Department. However, I
am of the view that, the said contention also cannot be accepted.
It is true that, Ext.P4 was issued by the Department of
Agriculture and in the said order there is no reference to any
concurrence from the Department of Revenue. The expression
'Government' is defined under Section 2(vii) of the Act as per
which 'Government' means State of Kerala. No specific reference
to a particular department is mentioned therein. Moreover, in the
preamble of the Paddy Land Act, 2008, it is clearly mentioned
the purpose of enactment. It is specified as follows:
2025:KER:21104
" .... AND WHEREAS, the Government are stasfied that it is
expedient, in public interest, to provide for the conservation of
paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or
reclamation thereof, in order to promote agricultural growth, to
ensure food security and to sustain ecological system in the State
of Kerala"
Therefore, the competence of the Department of Agriculture to
take decisions cannot be challenged, as the focus is mainly on the
agricultural growth, food security etc.
15. The specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners is that, since the matters relating to the
change in the revenue records are coming within the jurisdiction
of the Revenue Department, in the absence of the concurrence
from said Department, the nature of the property cannot be
changed as per the orders issued by the Department of
Agriculture. However, on carefully going through the scheme of
the Act, it is evident that the proceedings contemplated under the
Act are mainly at the instance of the officers of the Agricultural
Department. Moreover, in none of the provisions in the Paddy Land
Act, any concurrence from the Department of Revenue is
contemplated. In the absence of any stipulation that any
concurrence of the Revenue Department is necessary, it cannot
2025:KER:21104
be concluded that due to the lack of concurrence from the said
Department, the orders passed by the Agricultural Department
cannot be enforced. On the other hand, it is to be noted that,
Section 27C deals with the procedure to be followed for effecting
changes in the records, the said provision reads as follows:
"27C. Change in records (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the lime being in force or in any
judgement, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other
Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivision is
permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9,10 or 27Aof this
Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which
such orders for conversion are issued.
(2) Where the paddy land or un-notified land is duly converted
as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess
the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act 1961
(13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records
relating to such lands,
(3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the
number and date of the order and the authority granting
sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has
been accorded, extent of the land in each survey number for
which sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall
be clearly recorded ensuring that the old entries are legible.
(4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical checks to ensure that
changes in revenue records are in accordance with
sub-section (3).
2025:KER:21104
(5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the
revenue records relating so the paddy land or wetland
or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-
section (3)."
16. Section 27C contemplates for the steps to be taken
after the order for converting the land as per Section 27A is
passed. It contemplates a detailed procedure as to how the
change is to be effected and the same does not provide for a
concurrence of any particular Department. Therefore, in the
absence of any specific stipulation requiring an order from the
Revenue Department, Ext.P4 order issued by the Agricultural
Department has to be accepted and acted upon. It is true that, in
the averment made by the 7 th respondent in the counter affidavit,
there is a reference to the legal opinion received by them with
regard to the necessity of concurrence from the Revenue
Department. However, it was only a legal opinion, and in the
absence of any legal provisions supporting the said opinion, the
same cannot be treated as a legal impediment for implementing
Ext.P4 decision while following the procedure contemplated under
2025:KER:21104
Section 27C.
In such circumstances, after taking note of all the
relevant aspects, I find that, the constructions carried out by the
3rd respondent in the property referred to above were after
satisfying all the legal requirements as contemplated under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and no
illegalities are found. Therefore, I do not find any ground to allow
the reliefs sought in this writ petition and accordingly this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:21104
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41003/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES NO. 1 IN A MEETING OF
RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HELD ON
17..07..2017
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 16..08..2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. R3/9300/23
DATED 13..09..2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 124/2022/AGRI
DATED 16..02..2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 30..10..2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. G4-11282/23
DATED 10..11..2023 SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.1.2023 DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA TO ONE SANKUTHALA
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 01..11..2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION VO NO. 50/23
DATED 18..11..2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & VILLAGE
OFFICER, RAMANATTUKARA
Exhibit 10 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
2025:KER:21104
ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAMANATTUKARA
MUNICIPAL OFFICE IN A PADDY LAND
Exhibit P11 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION OBSTRUCTING
THE SMOOTH FLOW OF WATER
Exhibit R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2018
ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
SECRETARY
Exhibit R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NUMBER A3/1172/2020
DATED 07.02.2020
Exhibit R3(C) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. LSG001-06/APR-1/2-
2-/KIIFB -PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DATED 28.07.2020
Exhibit R3(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING EXECUTED ON 31.10.2020
BETWEEN THE 6TH RESPONDENT MANAGING
DIRECTOR, IMPACT KERALA LTD, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KERALA ON BEHALF OF
THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA AND THE 3RD
RESPONDENT SECRETARY, RAMANATTUKARA
MUNICIPALITY ON BEHALF OF THE RAMANATTUKARA
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit R3(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM OF
HANDING OVER THE SITE DATED 21.02.2022
