Kerala HC: Land Classified 'Purayidam' in BTR & Excluded from Data Bank Not 'Paddy Land' Under 2008 Act; Stop Memo Quashed - 2025-05-06

Kerala High Court: Land Recorded as 'Purayidam' in BTR, Excluded from Data Bank, Cannot Be Arbitrarily Deemed Paddy Land

Ernakulam, Kerala – The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed orders by revenue authorities that classified a petitioner's land as 'paddy land' despite official records like the Basic Tax Register (BTR) showing it as 'purayidam' (garden/dry land) and its exclusion from the statutory Data Bank. Justice Viju Abraham , presiding over the case, declared that the petitioner, Sunny Thomas , requires no permission under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter "2008 Act") for construction on the subject property.

The judgment, delivered on May 6, 2025, in W.P.(C) Nos. 4012 & 23869 of 2021, brings relief to Mr. Thomas , a retired Airport Authority of India employee, who had been embroiled in a prolonged dispute with revenue officials over the classification of his 16 Ares of land in Nedumpram Village, Thiruvalla.

Background of the Dispute

Mr. Sunny Thomas purchased the property, a coconut plantation adjacent to the Thiruvalla-Ambalappuzha State Highway, after verifying a possession certificate (Ext.P1) that described it as 'purayidam'. Stamp duty for 'garden land having state highway access' was paid, and subsequent land tax receipts also classified it as 'purayidam'. Crucially, the property was not included in the Data Bank prepared under the 2008 Act.

Despite these records, and after obtaining a building permit based on a re-issued possession certificate (Ext.P10) terming the land 'dry land' (following an earlier court intervention), Mr. Thomas faced a stop memo (Ext.P13) from the Village Officer when he attempted to level the land for construction. This led to a series of legal challenges, with revenue authorities, including the Village Officer and the District Collector, repeatedly classifying the land as 'paddy land' through orders Ext.P15, Ext.P23, and finally Ext.P25, which were challenged in the present writ petitions.

Petitioner's Arguments

Mr. Thomas , represented by Advs. Varughese M Easo and Vivek Varghese P.J., contended that: - All relevant revenue records (BTR, possession certificates, title deeds, tax receipts) consistently described the land as 'purayidam'. - The land was not included in the Data Bank under the 2008 Act. - Initial reports from the Tahsildar also supported his claim. - The authorities' decisions were arbitrary, ignored substantial evidence, and disregarded previous High Court directives. - He was being discriminated against, as neighboring properties were treated as 'purayidam'. - He cited Indira P.S. And Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another (2020 (4) KHC 33) to argue that BTR entries cannot be lightly disturbed.

Respondents' Stance

The State, represented by GP Riyal Devassy , and other respondents, argued that: - The settlement register classified the land as ' Nilam ' (paddy land). - The change in BTR to 'purayidam' was allegedly not based on any formal orders. - Site inspection revealed the land to be waterlogged and below road level, despite coconut trees. - The building permit was obtained based on an allegedly incorrect BTR entry.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Viju Abraham meticulously examined the evidence and legal provisions. The Court's reasoning was anchored on several key points:

Sanctity of BTR and Data Bank: The Court emphasized that the property was admittedly classified as 'purayidam' in the BTR and not included in the Data Bank. Citing Shanawaz Mytheenkunju v. Village Officer (2025 (1) KHC 447), the Court held that a Village Officer is not empowered under Section 12 of the 2008 Act to issue a stop memo if the property is shown as 'purayidam' in the BTR and is not in the Data Bank. Section 12 only permits stop memos for contravention of Section 3 (paddy land conversion) or Section 11 (wetland reclamation) of the 2008 Act.

Primacy of BTR over Old Records: Addressing the respondents' reliance on the old settlement register, the Court referred to Indira P.S. And Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another . It reiterated that "the entries in such a vital statutory document like the BTR cannot be simply ignored... merely on the ground that the old settlement register shows the description of the property otherwise." The Court noted the petitioner was not responsible for BTR entries.

Physical Condition of Land Not Sole Determinant: The argument that the land was low-lying and waterlogged was dismissed as insufficient to classify it as paddy land, following the precedent in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2021(6) KHC 316).

Conduct of Authorities Criticized: The Court took "serious note" of the fact that after an assurance was given in a contempt proceeding (C.O.C. No. 288 of 2021) that fresh orders would be passed, the authorities reiterated the same reasons for rejection. The Court observed, "The change in stand of the official respondents after the petitioner has purchased this property after verifying Government records itself and being satisfied that the property is not paddy land, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner." The Court stated it refrained from imposing exemplary costs only due to the "fervent request" of the learned Government Pleader.

The Verdict

The High Court set aside the impugned orders: - Ext.P15 (Village Officer's order dated 25.02.2020) - Ext.P23 (District Collector's order dated 06.02.2021) in W.P.(C) No.4012 of 2021 - Ext.P25 (District Collector's revised order dated 02.09.2021) in W.P.(C) No.23869 of 2021

Furthermore, the Court declared that "petitioner need not obtain any permission under the provisions of the 2008 Act for construction of the building in the subject property."

Implications

This judgment reinforces the importance of accurate and updated revenue records, particularly the Basic Tax Register and the Data Bank under the 2008 Act. It serves as a caution to revenue authorities against arbitrarily re-classifying land contrary to existing records and statutory frameworks, especially when such actions cause undue hardship to citizens who have acted in good faith based on those records. The decision also underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing administrative actions that appear to deviate from established legal principles and prior court directives.