High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-06-29Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

K.K. Jayalakshmi v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P(C).No.18741 of 2016 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-06-29
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition devoid of merit; the petition is dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.K. Jayalakshmi, W/o T.M. Ranganath

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Collector, Kannur
Sub Collector and Chairman of District Level Authorized Committee under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, Thalassery, Kannur District
Principal Agricultural Officer, Kannur
Agricultural Officer and Convener of Local Level Monitoring Committee, Krishibhavan, Kannur
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, South Bazar, Kannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.A. Ziyad Rahman
• Lal K. Joseph
• M.R. Xavier Jess

Counsels for Respondents

• MT.A.C. Vidhya

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K.K. Jayalakshmi, seeks exemption under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 for constructing a residential house on 20 cents of uncultivated paddy land in Re-survey No.966/1, Chovva Desom, Kannur Taluk. She inherited the property; title was crystallized by a Munsiff Court decree in O.S.236/2010 dated 31.01.2015. The land is described as uncultivated paddy land within a larger 71 cents of reclaimed, uncultivated land; tax payments are evidenced by Exhibit P1. The petitioner and her husband sought exemption for construction under Section 9 (Exhibits P2, P3). The LLMC rejected the application by Exhibit P5, relying on sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of sub-section (8) of Section 9, which purportedly restrict exemptions where land is paddy land or surrounded by paddy lands. The petitioner argued that the entire lands are uncultivated and that there is no possibility of cultivation, so the sub-clauses cannot bar relief; she relied on Adani Infrastructure v. State of Kerala for a broader interpretation of “paddy land.” The respondents contended that the subject land is surrounded by paddy lands and wetland, with a report showing water-logging and connectivity to paddy lands, corroborated by a Data Bank entry. Citing Thankachan v. District Collector, the court emphasized the Act’s object of protecting paddy land and rejected the petition, holding it devoid of merit and dismissed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 — Section 9Definition of 'paddy land' under Section 2(xii) of the Paddy Land ActRight to Information Act, 2005 (Exhibit P4)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Definition of 'paddy land' means land suitable for paddy cultivation; uncultivated land can still be paddy land if suitable for cultivation.
Exemption under Section 9 is restricted by sub-sections (8)(i) and (8)(iv).
Lands acquired after the Paddy Land Act (2008) may be excluded from exemption, aligning with the Act's purpose.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the entire land is uncultivated with no possibility of cultivation and, therefore, the exclusionary clauses under sub-sections (8)(i) and (8)(iv) of Section 9 should not bar exemption. Relying on Adani Infrastructure v. State of Kerala, she argues that the definition of ‘paddy land’ cannot be narrowly construed to defeat exemptions where cultivation is not feasible. She asserts that surrounding lands being present does not justify denial of exemption when the land itself is not cultivable due to lack of cultivation or other factors. The argument emphasizes that a purposive interpretation of the Paddy Land Act should further its conservation objective rather than rigidly applying restrictions that would block legitimate exemptions in clearly uncultivable land.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the land in question is interwoven with paddy lands and wetlands, with a district-level and agricultural-officer’s reports indicating surrounding paddy lands and water-logging, implying the land’s unsuitability for cultivation and its classification as paddy land under the Act. They rely on the LLMC report and the Data Bank; they also cite Thankachan v. District Collector to uphold the proposition that amendments post-2008 are not entitled to exemptions, as it would contravene the Act’s objective of protecting paddy land. The defense emphasizes that the Act’s provisions and the surrounding land usage justify the denial of exemption; the court should adhere to statutory interpretation that preserves paddy land conservation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2014 (1) KLT 774	Positive	Cited to support an interpretive approach to ‘paddy land’; the court uses para 26 to show uncultivated land can still be considered paddy land if capable of cultivation, aligning with conservation aims.
Thankachan v. District Collector	2017 (3) KLT 35	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that post-2008 acquisitions fall within the Act’s intent and exemptions may be limited; supports the dismissal ground.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.K. Jayalakshmi v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939** ## **W.P(C).No.18741 of 2016 (P)** ## **------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):-** ## **---------------** **K.K.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.T.M.RANGANATH, AGED 70, H NO.24/544, MANALODA ROAD, MANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN 673007.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.M.R.XAVIER JESS** **RESPONDENT(S):-** - **---------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR -677601.** **3. THE SUB COLLECTOR AND** - **CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND & WET LAND ACT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 677 610.** **4. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNUR - 677 601.** **5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND THE CONVENER OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KERALA CONSIDERATION OF PADDY LAND & WET LAND ACT, KRISHIBHAVAN, KANNUR, KRISHIBHAVAN, KANNUR - 677 601.** **6. THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR - 677 601.** **R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MT.A.C.VIDHYA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-6-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18741 of 2016 (P) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-**|**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-**| |---|---| |**-------------------------**|| |**EXHIBIT-P1:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.06.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT-P2:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.6.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT-P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.7.2015.**|| |**EXHIBIT-P3:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED**| ||**COMMITTEE DATED 26.09.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT-P4:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED INVESTIGATION REPORT BY THE**| ||**AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KANNUR, PROVIDED TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.**| |**EXHIBIT-P5:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.TB(3)76/15(3)**| ||**DATED 28.11.2015 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT-P6:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 30.11.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT-P7:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE APPEAL DATED 30.12.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT-P8:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**KANNUR BEARING ORDER NO.DCKNR/2411/2016L5 DATED 5.4.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT-P9:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PHYSICAL CONDITION OF**| ||**THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SURROUNDING**| ||**PROPERTIES.**| |**EXHIBIT-P9(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PHYSICAL CONDITION**|| ||**OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SURROUNDING**| ||**PROPERTIES.**| |**EXHIBIT-P9(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PHYSICAL CONDITION OF**|| ||**THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SURROUNDING**| ||**PROPERTIES.**| |**EXHIBIT-P9(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PHYSICAL CONDITION**|| ||**OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SURROUNDING**| ||**PROPERTIES.**| |**EXHIBIT-P10 :**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.D2-2015/45545/13/R-DIS.**| |**EXHIBIT-P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.01.2013.**|| |**EXHIBIT-P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.01.2012 IN O.S.**|| ||**236/2010 PASSED BVY THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR.**| |**EXHIBIT-P13 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE PROPERTY.**|| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-**|| |**--------------------------**<br>**NIL.**|| |**Vku/-**|**[ true copy ]**| ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18741 of 2016-P ----------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is concerned with 20 cents of uncultivated paddy land in Re-survey No.966/1 of Chovva Desom in Kannur Taluk. The petitioner is said to have inherited the said property from her mother and her title has crystallized by a decree of the Munsiff Court, Kannur in O.S.No.236 of 2010 dated 31.01.2015. Admittedly the said land is lying as uncultivated paddy land and forms part of a total area of 71 cents uncultivated reclaimed paddy land located in the very same re-survey number. The petitioner took delivery of the property on 28.03.2015 pursuant to the decree aforementioned. 2. The tax paid by the petitioner with respect to the property is evidenced by Exhibit P1. The petitioner and her husband, who are said to be now continuing in a rented accommodation, applied for exemption for construction of a residential house by Exhibits P2 and P3 under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity “Paddy Land Act”]. The LLMC rejected the application by WP(C) No.18741 of 2016 - 2 - Exhibit P5 order. It was stated therein that the petitioner would be disentitled for such exemption going by sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the entire lands are lying as uncultivated and two lands, on the western and northern boundaries, are converted lands. It is submitted that there is absolutely no possibility of cultivation and sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of sub-section (8) of Section 9 cannot, hence, be a bar against consideration of the petitioner’s exemption. To stand against such exemption, the reclamation sought for should affect both the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy lands. There being no cultivation at all carried on in the adjoining lands, there could be no restriction in granting an exemption, is the contention. 4. Even sub-clause (iv) talks about the land in which exemption is sought being surrounded by other paddy lands. Herein, it cannot be said that there are other paddy lands surrounding the petitioner’s property for reason of there being no cultivation carried on. It is also submitted, based on the definition of “paddy land” under WP(C) No.18741 of 2016 - 3 - Section 2(xii) that a land to come under the definition would have to be suitable for paddy cultivation. 5. With respect to the definition of “paddy land”, this Court has considered the exclusion intended in _**Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala**_ **[2014 (1) KLT 774],** of which paragraph 26 is extracted hereunder: “26. The report of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam also does not deviate from the fact that the subject lands have been rendered unsuitable for cultivation only for the reason that they have been uncultivated and left fallow. Going by the definition of “paddy land”, that is not the exclusion that is intended. Any paddy land left uncultivated, would be rendered uncultivable for reason of undergrowth, water-logging, mud clumping and so on and so forth. This would also lead to some growth of plants and even trees, but which, however, cannot result in the land being classified as a garden land. Such conversion would necessarily require a deliberate act of reclamation as also a systematic cultivation of crops, plants or trees. None of this is evident in the instant case. The report of the Principal Agricultural Officer can only be taken as finding the land to be not suitable for cultivation as such, for reasons mentioned above. The indication that on providing the necessary - 4 - WP(C) No.18741 of 2016 infrastructure, the same could be cultivated can only be understood as the paddy land requiring renewed activities of the plough and shears. Such a view is fortified by the fact that even the earlier report of the RDO dated 15.04.2008, relied on by the petitioners themselves in the earlier round of litigation, also reported the nature of the land as marshy, which could, by a concerted effort, be made suitable for cultivation. This is also the inclusion intended by the definition of “paddy land” in the Paddy Land Act”. 6. In the present case also it cannot be said that the lands in the survey number, said to be uncultivated for long, are not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even uncultivated lands left fallow for long would be suitable for paddy cultivation if some agricultural operations are conducted therein, was the finding in the aforesaid judgment. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that there can be a fresh consideration based on the definition. Even uncultivated lands which became fallow would come under the definition of 'paddy land'. The restriction under sub-clauses (i) and iv) of sub-section (8) of Section 9 would squarely apply in the case of the petitioner even going by the report of the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC. WP(C) No.18741 of 2016 - 5 - 7. The Agricultural Officer had, before the District Level Authorised Committee [for brevity “DLAC”] while considering the application under Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act, filed a detailed report as per Exhibit P4. Therein though it was stated that for 15 to 20 years there is no paddy cultivation carried on, it is also stated that the land is lying as fallow without any cultivation thereon. It is also categorically stated that the four sides of the subject land is covered by paddy lands. 8. This Court had also directed the LLMC to file a report after local inspection. A report has been filed and has been produced along with memo dated 19.12.2016. An extent of 19¼ cents of land owned by the petitioner is said to be existing admist about 2 hectares paddy land/wetland and is said to be accessible only through a mud road and then through the boundaries of the paddy lands. It is also stated that in an year for around 10 months there is water logging in the area of 1 to 2½ feet. There is also said to be a river stream passing through the aforesaid land. The land in the entire survey number has also been included as paddy land / wetland in the Data Bank prepared for the area, the extract of which is also produced. - 6 - WP(C) No.18741 of 2016 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, to controvert the allegation of surrounding lands being paddy lands, has produced Exhibit P10, which is said to be lying as paddy land, adjacent to the property in question; where a building was allowed to be constructed for religious practises. However, it is admitted that the said construction has not been carried out till now and there is a stay against the said order. 10. In this context, it is also to be observed that this Court has found in _**Thankachan v. District Collector**_ **[2017 (3) KLT 35]** that small parcels of land acquired after the introduction of the Paddy Land Act in the year 2008 will not be entitled to exemption since that would run contrary to the intention of the Act itself. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]