Court clarified the application of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act regarding land use and cultivation rights, emphasizing the necessity for appropriate permissions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 37.39 Ares in Re-Survey No. 54, Block No. 139 of Perumbavoor Village, which was purchased by the petitioner through a sale deed dated 04.07.2007. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P5 order by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property was being cultivated with banana plantain even at the time of its purchase by the petitioner, and that there was no paddy cultivation at all. Since the property was not suitable for paddy cultivation, the petitioner sought permission to continue cultivating other crops such as banana plantain. Consequently, the Village Officer submitted Ext.P2 report dated 10.11.2007, stating that the petitioner’s property is not fit for paddy cultivation and that other crops, including banana plantain, can be cultivated.

3. On 20.05.2015, the petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to continue the cultivation of banana plantain, as objections had been raised by certain persons. Based on the report submitted by the Village Officer, which stated that the property had remained fallow for the past 15 years and that nearby properties had been developed with residential buildings, and on a spot inspection conducted by the RDO, the RDO passed Ext.P3 order dated 29.05.2015, granting permission to carry out agricultural activities other than paddy cultivation.

4. However, a person who is not directly related to the issue, namely the 6^th respondent, preferred an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner (1^st respondent), as is evident from Ext. P5. Though, by Ext.P5 order dated 20.03.2017, the 1^st respondent permitted the cultivation of other crops, a condition was imposed that such cultivation could only be carried out between two paddy cultivation seasons. The finding of the 1st respondent is based on the assumption that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is applicable to the case at hand.

5. In Ext.P5 order, the 1^st respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep and Others [2015 (1) KLT 984], wherein it was held that the land recorded as ‘nilam’ in the BTR but not included in the data bank will be governed by the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967, whereas land recorded as ‘nilam’ in both the BTR and the data bank will be governed by the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008. In the present case, the property is mentioned as ‘nilam’ in the BTR as well as in the data bank. Therefore, clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967, is not applicable. It is also recorded in the impugned order that on the basis of the inspection conducted, the property was included in the data bank. However, going by the report submitted by the Village Officer, it appears that the property had been lying fallow for the past 15 years without any paddy cultivation, and from the photographs it is evident that the property is presently cultivated with plantains.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P5 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2021 (1) KHC 540] in support of his contention.

7. In response to the contentions raised in the writ petition, the 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein the primary contention is that the petitioner has no case that the land was converted prior to the enactment of the Act. It is also stated that, from the photographs produced, the land is still ly