SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M. MANOJ, J.
Jossy Chacko, S/o. C. Chacko, Represented By His Power Of Attorney Holder, P.J. Mathew, S/o. Joseph – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Department Of Revenue and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Roy Chacko, Sri. K.C. Vincent
For the Respondents: Sri. Y. Jafarkhan, SR. Government Pleader.

Permitting land use under Clause 6(2) does not extend to unauthorized reclamation, and remedies lie in approaching statutory authorities per Section 27A of the Paddy Act.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Clause 6(2) - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - The writ petition challenges conditions of an order restricting land use, where the petitioner claims entitlement to cultivate various crops based on prior permission; the court affirms that earlier orders do not permit unauthorized land conversion and the only remedy is to approach authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Act. (Paras 2, 11, 20)

(B) Res Judicata - The court examines maintainability in light of previous petitions, denying the petitioner's attempt to circumvent earlier decisions regarding land use declarations. (Paras 10, 15)

(C) Statutory interpretation - The judgment clarifies that previous permissions granted were not for the entire property and emphasizes adherence to specific provisions for land utilization. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to cultivate crops on a property based on a prior order for limited conversion, but faced restrictions due to unauthorized reclamation and the nature of the land’s classification.

Findings of Court:
The court stated that prior permissions under Clause 6(2) do not cover the entire land's area and mandated following proper procedures for any changes.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the order's conditions concerning land use and whether earlier judgments barred the current petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held Ext. P5 could not be deemed as an order under Clause 6(2) and affirmed the need for statutory processes for any changes to land use classification.

Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of without granting relief.

Table of Content
1. property details and initial permissions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. previous judgments and procedural requirements (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments regarding lease and usage regulations (Para 10 , 11)
4. contentions on interpretations of land use (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. final considerations and court's direction (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

The writ petition is preferred by the owner of an extent of 105.81 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1, along with another property having an extent of 50 Ares with a building in RS No. 157/2 in Block No. 19 of Kunnumma Village in Kuttanadu Taluk. Altogether, the contiguous holdings amount to 155.81 Ares (385 Cents).

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is primarily against certain conditions prescribed in Ext. P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is entitled to utilise 105.81 Ares (comprised in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 in Block No. 19) for the cultivation of plantain, vegetables, and tubers. This entitlement is claimed on the strength of the direction given by the 3rd respondent, asserting that it constitutes a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short ‘KLU Order’).

3. Originally, the petitioner obtained permission under Clause 6(2) for converting a limited extent of land in RS Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, 6, and 160/1 (in Block No. 19). This conversion was specifically for a strip of land 6 meters in width and 125 meters in length, intended to provide access to the property having an extent of 50 Ares in RS No. 157/2 of Kunnumma Village. This permission was granted as per the order of the Sub Collector, Alappuzha, dated 17.12.2013. However, it was later realised that, on the strength of the order dated 17.12.2013, the petitioner had reclaimed a much larger extent of property. Consequently, the District Collector issued directions to inspect the property and take necessary steps against the unauthorised reclamation.

4. Accordingly, an inspection was conducted on 07.01.2015. It was realised that, on the strength of the order dated 17.12.2013, the petitioner had unauthorisedly reclaimed a large extent of prop- erty. A further inspection was conducted on the same day, 07.01.2015, involving the Agricultural Officer, Tahsildar (Kuttanad), and Village Officer (Kunnumma). During this inspection, the following was observed:

- There are 55 yielding coconut trees and 60 coconut saplings in the property.

- The reclaimed property is suitable for the cultivation of plantains, vegetables, and tubers.

- Water channels suitable for irrigation are present around the property.

- Cultivating paddy lands is also visible around the property.

5. Accordingly, certain directions were issued to the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Kuttanad), the SHO (Pulinkunnu), and the Secretary (Kavalam Grama Panchayat):

1. The landowner shall take steps to cultivate the land with the abovementioned crops (plantain, vegetables, and tubers) within 45 days, failing which, the Tahsildar (Kuttanad) is authorized to take action for the cultivation of the said land by giving the land under auction.

2. In case any activities are noted on the property that change its nature, the Tahsildar (Kuttanad) and the SHO (Pulinkunnu) are authorized to initiate proceedings for the attachment of those articles used for such activities.

3. No activities or construction other than agriculture shall be done on this property as per the Kerala Land Utilisation (KLU) Order. The Tahsildar must ensure that no construction works are executed on the property.

It was further directed that, as the land is agricultural, the Secretary (Kavalam Grama Panchayat) shall not grant any permission for construction in the property comprised in Survey Nos. 157/3, 4, 5, and 160/1, 2 of Kunnumma Village.

6. However, treating the order issued under Clause 7 as a declaration that the land was not paddy land and not suita

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top