Paddy land purchased after Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act 2008 can't be converted: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the owner of paddy land, who purchased the same after the coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act), is not entitled to seek reclamation of the paddy land for construction of a residential building [Sabeena EK v District Collector].A full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justices Shaji P Chaly and Sathish Ninan held that only a person who was the owner of the land on the date of coming into force of the Act can seek such conversion. "Taking into account the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the owner of the paddy land who is entitled to seek conversion or reclamation in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 2008, is the owner of the paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 i.e., 12.08.2008", the Court held..The Full Bench decision came on a batch of petitions that were referred to it by a single judge as there were contradictory judgments from other single-judges and a Division Bench of the Court. .The basic question involved in all the petitions was whether a person, who purchased a bit of paddy land after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, is entitled to prefer an application under Section 5(3)(i) r/w Section 9 of Act, 2008 for permission to reclaim the same, for construction of a residential building..While the question was answered in the negative by the single-judges, the Division Bench had held that applications filed by purchasers of paddy land after the Act came into force are also liable to be considered by the statutory authorities for conversion..The full-bench found that the single-judges decision was correct in law and that of the Division Bench was not. "Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision rendered by the learned single Judges in Thankachan, Yousuf Chalil and Sudheesh R (supra) that a purchaser of a bit of paddy land after the coming into force of Act 2008 is not entitled to seek reclamation of the paddy land for construction of a residential building is the correct law, and the judgment of the Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala and others (supra) is not the correct law," the judgement stated. .The petitions challenged the orders passed by the primary as well as the appellate authority under the Act preventing conversion of the petitioner's paddy land for constructing houses. The petitioners claimed that no distinction can be made by and between a pre-statute owner and a post-statute owner, and if any such classification is made, it would be unreasonable and further no intelligible differentia can be gathered as far as the proprietorial right is concerned regarding the property. It was also submitted that the dichotomy given to the term ‘owner’ by the learned single-judges as pre-statute and post statute owner is artificial and it is not so contemplated by the Act..The full bench went through the provisions of the Act but stressed that the same must be viewed in light of the intentions of the State Legislature in enacting it. It referred to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Mishra v State of UP, in which was held that issues in the realm of land reforms legislation, must be judged, not meticulously for every individual injury but by larger concerns impacting the welfare of society as a whole. .Applying this principle to the Act, 2008, the Court said,"The agrarian reform envisioned by the State legislature by introducing the Act, 2008 is on the basis of an agricultural policy which is intended to advance the object of protecting the paddy fields from being converted and utilized for other purposes, thus reducing the paddy cultivation and affecting the interests of the State and the citizens of the State at large".As per the provisions of the Act, the Local Level Monitoring Committee is empowered to prepare a data bank of the paddy fields within the respective panchayats/ municipalities/ corporations. A proviso to Section 5(4) was later introduced, empowering the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to consider any application for removal of the property from the data bank.In December 2017, Section 27A of the Act was introduced. Rules were also framed in order to grant permission for change of nature of the unnotified paddy land..Considering Section 9(8)(ii), the Court opined that it is clear that the owner of the paddy land, is entitled to secure the benefit of the provision for reclamation, only if the owner or his family does not own a suitable land for the purpose anywhere in the district.Further, it found that the purchaser of a bit of paddy land, subsequent to the introduction of the Act, 2008, would definitely be an owner of a paddy land, but he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 5(3) r/w Section 9 of the Act..Having examined the definition of 'owner' as under Section and Sections 3, 5(3) and 9 of the Act, in light of the intention of the Legislature, the Court held that purchasers of paddy land after August 12, 2008 are not entitled to have it converted for residential purposes. .The petitioners were represented by advocates N Raghuraj, CS Manilal and Unni KK. The State was represented by Special Government Pleader S Ranjit..[Read Judgment]