Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Alphy Joseph K. – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17198 OF 2025|WP(C) NO. 17229 OF 2025|WP(C) NO. 17327 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.N.Manoj, Aadithye Manoj Menon
For the Respondents: K.C. Vincent
Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, provides alternative, not cumulative, methods for proving that a land ceased to be paddy land before 1967. Compliance with any one of the specified sub-clauses constitutes sufficient evidence for the authorities to proceed.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Rule 12(13) - Scope of enquiry - Interpretation of evidentiary requirements - Rule 12(13) lists five categories of documents as evidence to show land was naturally filled or converted before 04.07.1967 - Sub-rules (i) to (v) are to be treated as alternative and not cumulative - Production of documents under any one of the sub-clauses is sufficient evidence if acceptable - Punctuation marks like semicolons in statutes are minor elements and cannot override the plain meaning or the legislative intent of the provision. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
(B) Evidence - Admissibility - Expert opinion - Affidavit of witnesses - Witness statements serve as material supporting primary evidence and cannot by themselves prove conversion in the absence of scientific evidence - Scientific reports from recognized expert bodies regarding the age of trees are valid evidence when verified - Determination of age of trees is a key factor when evaluating land conversion claims under Rule 12(13)(v). (Paras 13, 27, 28, 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the change of nature of their properties in revenue records, claiming the land ceased to be paddy land before the 1967 cut-off date. Applications filed in form-9 were rejected by authorities on the ground that petitioners had not produced all documents categorized under sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13). The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that these sub-clauses provide alternative, not cumulative, modes of proof. A court-appointed commission and expert verification later supported the evidence regarding the age of trees and the state of the land.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the authorities erred in requiring all documents mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) to be produced cumulatively. The court confirmed that the documents operate as alternative evidence. Based on the expert reports and the commissioner's findings regarding the age of standing trees and the lack of agricultural activity on the land, the court concluded that the properties indeed ceased to be paddy land before the mandated date.
Issues: Whether all documents mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13) are required to be produced cumulatively to prove land conversion before 04.07.1967, and whether other scientific/expert evidence suffices to substantiate such claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 12(13) must be interpreted as providing alternative forms of evidence for land conversion claims; holding otherwise would impose an impossible burden on applicants. Primary scientific evidence (like expert reports) supported by supplementary material (like affidavit statements of witnesses regarding the historical lie of the land) constitutes sufficient proof, and it is the duty of authorities to process applications based on valid evidence under any of the prescribed categories.
Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside with directions to authorities to pass orders in favor of the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek property reclassification in revenue records as non-paddy land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. dispute on evidential requirements for form-9 applications under rules 2008. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court-mandated enquiry into the genuineness of scientific documentation. (Para 14 , 15 , 28) |
| 4. historical context of paddy land act and klu order, 1967. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. statutory interpretation of 'or' in rule 12(13) regarding evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. admissibility of expert certificates and physical inspections as primary evidence. (Para 27 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. orders to set aside rejections and allow form-9 applications. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT
The important point to be decided in this case is about the scope of enquiry contemplated in Rule 12 (13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short ‘Rules 2008’). Rule 12 (13) of the Rules 2008 deals with the submission of Form-9 application and the manner in which the same is to be considered. Which are the documents that are to be produced by an applicant for considering a Form-9 application, and the manner in which a Form-9 application is to be considered by the authorised officer, are to be dealt with in detail in this case.
2. Petitioners in these cases filed three separate Form-9 applications in accordance with the Rules 2008. The petitioners in WP(C) No.17229/2025 are husband and wife. They filed the above writ petition challenging the order rejecting a Form-9 application for the property in which they are co- owners. WP(C) No.17327/2025 is filed by the second petitioner in WP(C) No.17229/2025, and that writ petition is filed against the dismissal of a Form-9 application submitted by her in a property owned by her. WP(C) No.17198/2025 is filed by the 1st petitioner in WP(C) No.17229/2025 against an order rejecting a Form-9 application in respect of the property in his name. All three properties owned by the petitioners are situated adjacent to each other and are in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village, Thrissur District. For convenience, I will narrate the facts in WP(C) 17229/2025.
3. The petitioners in WP(C) No.17229/2025 are husband and wife, and they are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 19 cents of land (7.68 Ares) comprised in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village. According to the petitioners, the land is situated in a commercially important area. It is the definite case of the petitioners that the land ceased to be Nilam/Paddy land even before the year 1967. The land held and possessed by the petitioners individually also lies adjacent to this particular land. The land held and possessed by the second petitioner was bifurcated into two on account of the passage of the National Highway bypass is the submission. According to the petitioners, the land contains teak, coconut, arecanut, and mahagony trees, all of which are at least 75 years old. The land is facing the bypass road. The petitioners state that there are no paddy lands in or around the land owned by them, and that no agricultural operations have been carried out in or around the land for the last 55 years. It is also submitted that the Government of Kerala published the fair value of the land comprised in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village, taking into account the commercial importance of the area, subsequent to the developments, as evident from Ext. P1. According to the petitioners, the value shown in Ext.P1 documents substantiates the facts that the properties have ceased to be paddy land.
4. It is submitted that, since this land had ceased to be Nilam long before the year 1967, the petitioners approached the 1st respondent with an application in Form-9 of the Rules 2008, for the purpose of changing the description of the land in the revenue and other records. Similar applications were filed by the petitioners for their individual properties situated adjacent to this land.
5. The 1st respondent con
