Orders Removing Lulu's Land from 'Paddy Land' Data Bank Quashed for Procedural Lapses: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-28

Kerala HC Quashes Orders Favoring Lulu Group, Cites Procedural Breach in Paddy Land Declassification

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has quashed a series of orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) that had removed approximately 4 acres of land owned by Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. in Thrissur from the 'paddy land' data bank. The court, presided over by Justice Viju Abraham, found that the orders were issued in violation of mandatory statutory procedures under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

The judgment remits the matter back to the RDO for fresh consideration, directing strict adherence to legal requirements, including obtaining a fresh, personally supervised report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC).

Case Background

The dispute centered on 161.45 Ares (approx. 3.99 acres) of land in Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur. The case involved two interconnected writ petitions: one filed by Lulu Hyper Market seeking to halt restoration proceedings against its property, and a counter-petition by T.N. Mukundan, a member of the District Level Authorised Committee, challenging the very orders that declassified the land.

Lulu contended that their land was converted long before the 2008 Act came into force. Based on this claim, they secured orders from the RDO removing the land from the data bank and permitting its reclassification in revenue records. However, the District Collector subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act to restore the land, prompting Lulu to approach the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. argued that once the land was officially removed from the data bank by the RDO, the Collector had no authority to initiate restoration proceedings under Section 13. They maintained that the RDO's orders were final and binding, and any subsequent action was arbitrary.

T.N. Mukundan , the petitioner in the second case, mounted a robust challenge against the RDO's orders. His counsel argued: -

Procedural Illegality: The RDO passed the declassification orders without obtaining a mandatory report from the local Agricultural Officer, a direct violation of Rule 4(4e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. -

Contradictory Evidence: There were significant discrepancies between an earlier KSRSEC satellite report from 2019, which indicated the land was fallow paddy land, and subsequent reports from 2021 that formed the basis of the RDO's decision. -

Overwhelming Contrary Proof: Mukundan presented substantial evidence, including reports from the Agricultural and Village officers, photographs, revenue records, and Google Earth images, suggesting the land was actively being cultivated as paddy land as recently as 2019-2020 and was undergoing illegal conversion.

Court's Pivotal Reasoning

Justice Viju Abraham found significant merit in the arguments raised by T.N. Mukundan. The court's decision hinged on a critical procedural failure by the RDO.

The judgment noted:

"A perusal of the... orders allowing the Form-5 application... would reveal that no such report was called for from the Agricultural Officer and any such report is seen referred to or considered while issuing the said orders... In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the issuance of Exts.P11 and P12 orders... is without following the mandatory provisions in Rule 4(4e) of the Rules, 2008."

The court acknowledged the "marked variation" in the KSRSEC reports for the same period, which it found scientifically implausible. It also gave weight to the extensive evidence, including a Sub Collector's own report to the District Collector, which stated that the property appeared to be paddy land being converted, with recently planted trees and a newly constructed wall.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court delivered a comprehensive verdict setting aside the key orders in favor of Lulu:

1. Orders Quashed: The RDO's orders removing the land from the data bank (dated 31.01.2022 and 11.10.2022) and the subsequent order for changing its classification in revenue records (dated 15.10.2022) were quashed.

2. Matter Remitted: The case was sent back to the RDO for a fresh, lawful consideration of Lulu's application to remove the land from the data bank.

3. Strict Directions: The RDO was explicitly directed to follow all procedures, including obtaining a report from the Agricultural Officer and a new, personally supervised report from the Director of KSRSEC to ensure accuracy.

4. Restoration Proceedings Paused: Proceedings initiated by the District Collector under Section 13 are to be kept in abeyance until the RDO makes a final decision.

5. Fee Refund: Any conversion fee paid by Lulu is to be returned, as the underlying order permitting it has been quashed.

This judgment reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in environmental and land use laws, emphasizing that administrative decisions, especially those concerning the conversion of ecologically sensitive paddy lands, cannot bypass mandatory checks and balances.