The court harmoniously interpreted the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, ruling that the latter cannot apply to land under exemption for commercial use.

JUDGMENT :

(A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.)

As all these three writ appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. WA No. 1691 of 2023 arises from the judgment dated 09.08.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023. WA No.1441 of 2025 arises from the order dated 19.11.2024 of another learned Single Judge in RP No.356 of 2024 whereby he dismissed the review petition preferred against the judgment dated 31.01.2024 in WP(C) No.20159 of 2023, from which WA No.633 of 2025 arises.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for a disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:

The writ petitioner in the writ petitions aforementioned is stated to be in ownership and possession of 24.5 Acres of land abutting the Container Road at Kalamassery. The said parcel of land was purchased by him in several lots during the period from 2003 to 2011 under cover of 83 documents. The petitioner had purchased the lands with a view to construct and operate a Container Freight Station on the said land. Towards that end, there was also some construction that was completed in the year 2007.

4. It would appear that, out of the aforesaid extent of 24.5 Acres of land, an extent of 15 Acres and 34.45 Cents was covered by specific orders issued by the Government and the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilization Order permitting a use of the land for purposes other than paddy cultivation. However, it is an admitted fact that there is no such permission covering an extent of 9 Acres from out of the 24.5 Acres of land held by the writ petitioner.

5. By Ext.P16 order dated 14.06.2018, the writ petitioner was granted an exemption under Section 81(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 , whereby he was permitted to retain the excess lands, over and above the ceiling limit, in his possession on the specific condition that he used the exempted land only for commercial/industrial purposes. By virtue of the exemption granted under Section 81(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the State Government, therefore, the writ petitioner was obliged to use the land for commercial/industrial purposes as a condition for retaining the exemption from the ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

6. It is against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that, in these appeals, we are called upon to consider the legality of the actions of the authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the’2008 Act’) in issuing stop memos and prohibitory orders against the writ petitioner, based solely on a complaint received by the said authority, that the writ petitioner was resorting to filling up of the lands in his ownership and possession contrary to the provisions of the 2008 Act. The writ petitions were preferred by the petitioner at a point in time when he was served with the stop memos and the prohibitory orders. The first writ petition, WP(C) No.16781 of 2023 was considered by the learned Single Judge, who found as follows at paragraphs 29 and 30 of his judgment, while allowing the writ petition.

“29. 29. In the case of the petitioner, the 24.5 Acres land was possessed by the petitioner since 2002-2003 and soon thereafter. The land is not cultivated with paddy for long. There are official reports that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation due to inadequate irrigation and drainage facilities and due to flow of industrial waste from nearby industrial units. The land is being used for services and facilities like Cargo Moving facility, Supply Chain Management, Container Freight Station, Fuel Station, Weigh Bridge, Dormitories for Container Lorry Drivers and Staff, Bank, Toilets, Godowns, Parking spaces, Truck Maintenance Workshop, Customs bonded CFS area, etc.

30. When the present nature of land usage is as stated above and since the work being carried out is only for facilitating parking of lorries, as long as the petitioner is going