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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
A V SANIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26800 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.UNNI. K.K.
For the Respondents: M.K.SUMOD, VIDYA M.K., THUSHARA.K GP, J JANARDHANA SHENOY

The court affirmed that the conversion of paddy land must comply with relevant conservation laws and allowed the petitioner to seek legal remedies if aggrieved.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to halt the illegal conversion of paddy land by the 8th respondent, invoking the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Court observed the 8th respondent's compliance with Section 27B of the Act and suggested that aggrieved parties pursue necessary legal action. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to act in accordance with law.

Table of Content
1. petition filed to stop illegal conversion of paddy land. (Para 1)
2. discussion on compliance with conservation laws. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order directing the respondents No 2 to 6 to take immediate steps to stop illegal conversion of paddy land by the 8th respondent after considering Ext.P6, P7, & P8 complaints.

ii) To declare that, it is not possible to carry out any activity on the paddy land or on un-notified land without obtaining the permissions under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of paddy and wet land Act 2008.

iii) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to take appropriate steps to stop the illegal conversion of paddy land by the 8th respondent. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel appearing for the 8th respondent submitted that the 8th respondent has obtained orders under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008 and he had obtained possession certificate showing that the property is converted as 'Puayidom'.

Petitioner also made available the occupancy certificate and also building permit issued by the Madayi Grama Panchayat, considering the order as per ref:DCKNR/7698/2024-L5 dated 12.03.2025. If that is the case, the petitioner is aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner can do the needful in accordance with law.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to do the needful in accordance with law, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

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