Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43167
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
SPEAKS PROPERTIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14045 OF 2019 | WP(C) NO. 16684 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.S.SURESH KUMAR, RAJAN VISHNURAJ, V.HARISH
For the Respondents: SRI.TEK CHAND, SRI.JOLLY JOHN
The court upheld the legality of conversion orders while confirming that public interest did not justify interference, citing statutory compliance by authorities.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections 2, 3 & 13 - Writ petitions challenging State Government orders regarding conversion of paddy field to other purposes - The petitioner contends that the State Government's acceptance of conversion post-commencement of Act is bad in law. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 24)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - Scope and Nature - The petitioner contended for environmental conservation and challenged legality of land conversion orders. The court found no reasons to intervene as no legal infirmity was proved. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
The applications filed by Speaks Properties Limited and the public interest litigant challenged the legality of state orders allowing the conversion of paddy land into commercial property, invoking laws that restrict such changes.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to make out a case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference with the government order, and the court upheld the legality of prior compounding orders.
Issues: The core issues revolved around whether the government acted improperly in allowing conversion of designated paddy land and the authority's capability to pass orders without proper assessments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that due process was followed, and without evidence of legal infirmity, their jurisdiction to intervene was limited.
Result: Both W.P.
(C) No. 16684/2019 dismissed; W.P.
(C) No. 14045/2019 allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to orders related to land conversion. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. public interest vs. land use regulations. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. juridical scope of the court's intervention. (Para 17 , 20) |
| 4. legal authority and order reversal matters. (Para 24) |
| 5. final ruling on writ petitions. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2022 SHAJI P.CHALY,J Captioned writ petitions are connected in respect of filling up of a paddy field by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14045 of 2019 namely M/s. Speaks Properties. Limited; which is also the 4th respondent in the connected public interest writ petition. The petitioner in the connected public interest writ petition W.P.© 16684 of 2019 is said to be interested in environmental protection activities and is engaged in legal battles for the protection of forest, public lands and upholding the principles of the doctrine of public trust for the past two decades.
2. The Public Interest writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P3 order dated 31.1.2019, bearing No.G.O.(Rt.) 337/2019/Rev., passed by the State Government in a revision filed by the petitioner in the connected writ petition under section 28 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ,(hereinafter called Act 2008); whereby the State Government has allowed the revision filed by the 4th respondent, viz., M/s.Speaks Properties Limited, formerly known as, “Synthite Properties and Investments (P) Limited, and accordingly Exhibit P2 order dated 26.9.2018 bearing No.L-17-2985/14 passed by the District Collector under section 13 of the Act, 2008, directing the 4th respondent to restore the paddy field to its original position is set aside. Later as per an order dated 08.05.2019, the said order is suspended pending reconsideration of the order, which is the challenge in the writ petition filed by the owner of the property.
3. In Exhibit P3 order, the State Government, even though set aside the order of the District Collector, has directed the 4th respondent to approach the competent authority to remove the properties from the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Act, 2008.
4. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 4th respondent company had obtained Exhibit P1 order under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for converting 5.83.65 Hectares of paddy land in Kunnathunadu Village. At the outset, it is stated that till such time, section 27A was brought into force under the Act, 2008 on and w.e.f.30.12.2017, the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was alone vested with powers for granting permission for the utilisation of the paddy field for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations.
6. The case projected by the petitioner is that even though the 4th respondent has secured Exhibit P1 order, it has not carried out the conversion before the commencement of the Act, 2008, and accordingly, the land was categorised as paddy land in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Act, 2008. It is further submitted that in 2013-2014, when conversion activities started, there was widespread protest against the same and accordingly, the District Collector, Ernakulam – the 3rd respondent, initiated action under section 13 of the Act, 2008 and have found that the 4th respondent has carried out the conversion of the property; thereby passed Exhibit P2 order directing the 4th respondent to restore the paddy field to its original position. Exhibit P2 was challenged by the 4th respondent before the State Government by filing a revision petition, as specifically stated above.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram - the 2nd respondent, ignoring the findings and reports leading to Exhibit P2 order passed by the District Collector, bluntly accepted 4th respondent's version and passed E
