Owners of paddy land as of 12.08.2008 can seek reclamation for construction; purchasers after this date cannot.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

1. “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to consider the exhibit P4 application submitted by the petitioner within a reasonable period fixed by this Honourable court.

2. Direct the seventh respondent to issue building permit in favor of the petitioner to construct a residential house for his own purpose.

3. Issue such other writ or orders or directions, which this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 15.09.2020, this Court passed the following order.

“The basic question in this matter is whether a person who purchases a bit of paddy land after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act . 2008(the Act), is entitled to prefer an application under the Act for permission to reclaim the same for construction of residential building.

The question aforesaid has been referred by this court in W.P.(C) No.17837 of 2020 and connected cases for decision by a larger bench. In the light of the said reference, this matter is also referred for decision by a larger bench, along with W.P.(C)

No.17837 of 2020 and connected cases.”

3. The Full Bench of this Court already considered the issue and delivered a judgment on 23.03.2022. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

41. “Taking into account the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the owner of the paddy land who is entitled to seek conversion or reclamation in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 2008, is the owner of the paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 i.e., 12.08.2008.

42. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision rendered by the learned single Judges in Thankachan, Yousuf Chalil and Sudheesh R (supra) that a purchaser of a bit of paddy land after the coming into force of Act 2008 is not entitled to seek reclamation of the paddy land for construction of a residential building is the correct law, and the judgment of the Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala and others (supra) is not the correct law.

43. Normally, in view of the reference answered as above, the writ petitions ought to have been sent back to the learned single Judge for appropriate consideration. But, as per the documents produced and the pleadings put forth in the writ petitions, it is quite clear and evident that all the petitioners, except the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18356 of 2020, are purchasers of a bit of paddy land after the coming into force of the Act, 2008 and therefore, no interference can be made to the order passed by the primary and appellate authorities, and no direction can be given to the primary authority for consideration of the pending applications under Section 5 (3) r/w Section 9 of the Act 2008, and therefore it would not serve any purpose. Therefore, we dismiss all the other writ petitions, in view of the findings rendered above.

44. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18356 of 2020 is concerned, she is the beneficiary of a settlement deed executed by and between the legal heirs of a deceased owner of a paddy land. In the light of the law laid down by us as above, it needs to be ascertained as to who was the owner of the land in question as on 12.08.2008 and whether such person satisfied all the stipulations under Sections 5 and 9 of the Act, 2008. As per Section 9 (8), it is clear that neither the owner of a paddy land, nor his family shall own a suitable land. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the applicati