Restoration orders under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act do not automatically declare land's legal status; evidence must substantiate claims of wetlands within prohibited distances.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42638 of 2025, filed this writ appeal under  Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The pleadings in the writ petition in brief are as follows: The appellant-petitioner is the owner in possession of a wetland having an extent of 0.50 square metres in Re.Sy.No.11/4-3 and 1.74 Ares in Re.Sy.No.12/2-2 in Block No.14 of Kallelibhagom Village. Evidencing the same, the appellant produced Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 10.05.2022. The 5^th respondent, Subairkutty, is the title holder of 11.3 Ares of wetland in Sy.No.11/2 and Sy.No.11/2-1 in Block No.14 of Kallelibhagom Village. The property of the appellant is adjoining the property of the 5^th respondent.

2.1. In Ext.P2 proceedings dated 04.06.2019 initiated by the 1^st respondent District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, (‘Paddy Land Act’ for short), the 5^th respondent was directed to restore the land to its original position, finding that the land had been converted into dry land. But the 5^th respondent, using his political and financial power, influenced the Revenue and Agricultural Department Officials and removed the property from the Data Bank as per proceedings dated 11.12.2020. The appellant pleads that the erstwhile properties situated in Re.Sy.Nos.11 and 12 of Kallelibhagom Village are wetlands cultivated with paddy and included in the Data Bank and other village records. Though some other owners of the neighbouring properties approached the revenue authorities for removal of their properties from the Data Bank, their applications were rejected, observing that those properties are wetlands.

2.2. The 6^th respondent, Smt.Shyla.P submitted an application before the 1^st respondent for a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’ for short) to start a petroleum retail outlet in the property of the 5^th respondent. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 detailed objection dated 04.10.2024, challenging the application submitted by the 6^th respondent, highlighting Ext.P2 proceedings of the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent, Additional District Magistrate conducted an enquiry through the Deputy Collector (LR) and solicited objections of the neighbouring property owners. While the application for NOC was pending before the Additional District Magistrate, the 6^th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.45976 of 2024 for the disposal of the said application within a time-bound manner by arraying only the officials as parties to that writ petition. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment dated 21.01.2025, disposed of that writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the application for NOC in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, after giving the 6^th respondent and also the 3^rd respondent an opportunity of hearing.

2.3. The 2^nd respondent, upon hearing the appellant and all the other stakeholders, and after obtaining an enquiry report from the Deputy Collector (LR), rejected the NOC. It was specifically observed in Ext.P5 rejection order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent that the conversion of the property as garden land (dry land) as per Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is illegal, as the wetland was converted only after the coming into force of the Act on 12.08.2008. Being aggrieved, the 6^th respondent filed W.P.(C)No.19371 of 2025 before this Court, stating that the direction in Ext.P2 was complied with and therefore the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider her application for NOC afresh. According to the appellant, the 6^th respondent has not complied with the directions in Ext.P2 order, which would be evident from Ext.P6 extract of the relevant page of the Thandaper Register. By suppressing the above facts, the respondents 5 and 6, using illegal means, influenced the Local Level Monitoring Committee