Kerala High Court Quashes RDO’s Order Allowing Conversion of Lulu Hypermarket’s Thrissur Land | Cites Violations of Paddy Land Act | Directs Fresh Decision
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that the exclusion of certain lands from the notified paddy data bank without obtaining a mandatory report from the Agricultural Officer violated statutory procedure. The Court quashed the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer permitting removal of lands from the data bank and directed a fresh consideration in strict compliance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and its Rules. The Bench further ordered that any proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act be kept in abeyance until such reconsideration, and directed refund of any conversion fees paid, subject to final outcome. The matter was remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a time-bound fresh decision with mandatory reliance on authenticated reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) and the Agricultural Officer.
The writ petitions arose out of disputes concerning lands in Survey Nos. 403, 405, and 406 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38444 of 2022, Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd., claimed ownership and possession of 161.45 Ares (398.94 cents) of land in the said survey numbers. The company asserted that these lands had been converted much prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (“the Act, 2008”). Initially, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) of Thrissur Municipal Corporation included the properties as converted lands in the draft data bank. Later, the final data bank listed them as paddy lands.
The petitioner pointed out that 50 cents of land in Survey No. 405 had earlier been permitted for use other than paddy cultivation by order dated 24.06.1995 under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order). Reports obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) were produced to show that conversion had occurred prior to the Act of 2008. Accordingly, a Form-5 application for deletion of the land from the data bank was submitted. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) partially allowed the request by excluding Survey Nos. 403 and 406 but took the position that Survey No. 405 was already subject to KLU permission. The petitioner challenged this stance and subsequent stop memos, ultimately leading to further orders excluding Survey No. 405 as well.
After securing deletion of all three survey numbers from the data bank, the petitioner applied under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 for changing the nature of the land in the revenue records, which was allowed. However, proceedings were later initiated under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner, prompting W.P.(C) No. 38444 of 2022, seeking to quash the notice and direct recognition of the land as “purayidam” in the Basic Tax Register.
Parallelly, W.P.(C) No. 1045 of 2023 was filed by T.N. Mukundan, a member of the District Level Authorised Committee in Thrissur. He alleged that the lands were part of a larger paddy field known as “Pannikkara Kini Kol Padavu Padasekharam” and that attempts had been made to illegally reclaim and convert them. He relied on earlier complaints of unauthorized clay mining and stop memos issued in 2016 against previous owners. According to him, the Form-5 applications were allowed without following the statutory procedure of calling for reports from the Agricultural Officer or LLMC, rendering the RDO’s orders invalid.
Mukundan pointed to multiple reports: a 2019 KSRSEC report (Ext.P1) identifying the land as paddy, Agricultural Officer reports recommending rejection of conversion, and records showing paddy cultivation in 2019–20. He argued that subsequent KSRSEC reports in 2021 contradicted earlier findings and were obtained under undue influence. He produced Google Earth images and LLMC validation reports confirming paddy status as of 2008 and thereafter.
The respondents, including the Sub Collector and KSRSEC, defended their actions. The RDO maintained that orders were passed strictly based on KSRSEC reports. KSRSEC explained discrepancies between the 2019 and 2021 reports by pointing to differences in requisition scope, survey coverage, and satellite imagery years used. The Director clarified that the 2019 report was a combined report for all three survey numbers, while later reports addressed them separately.
Thus, the dispute revolved around whether the lands were legitimately excluded from the data bank, whether statutory procedure under Rule 4(4e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 had been followed, and whether subsequent actions under Section 13 of the Act were valid.
Justice Viju Abraham examined the rival contentions and statutory framework. The Court first considered the locus standi of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1045 of 2023. It observed: “In view of the above facts and circumstances and the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his contentions, I am not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of locus standi to challenge the impugned orders.”
Turning to the orders excluding the lands from the data bank, the Court stated: “A perusal of the Exts.P7 and P14 orders allowing the Form-5 application, produced in W.P.(C) No.38444 of 2022 and impugned in W.P.(C) No.1045 of 2023 as Exts.P11 and P12, 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.”
The Court relied on Rule 4(4e) of the 2008 Rules, which mandates that applications concerning paddy land must be forwarded to the Agricultural Officer for report before decision. The Bench recorded: “In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the issuance of Exts.P11 and P12 orders produced in W.P.(C) No.1045 of 2023 is without following the mandatory provisions in Rule 4(4e) of the Rules, 2008.”
On the question of conflicting KSRSEC reports, the Court noted the petitioner’s comparative table showing variation between the 2019 and 2021 reports for the same land and period. The judgment observed: “There is marked variation in the scientific data for the same period, which is impossible by scientific standards.”
The Court also took into account Google Earth imagery, LLMC validation reports, Agricultural Officer’s findings, and official statements acknowledging that Survey No. 405 remained paddy land being converted as late as 2022.
The judgment recorded: “Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Revenue Divisional Officer.”
In conclusion, the Court issued a series of directions. It stated: “Exts.P11, P12 and P13 orders impugned in W.P.(C) No.1045 of 2023 are quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent/authorised officer for reconsideration.”
The Court directed that the Revenue Divisional Officer must re-examine the Form-5 applications strictly in accordance with Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules, particularly Rules 4d, 4e and 4f, which require obtaining a report from the Agricultural Officer. It further ordered: “Before taking a decision in the matter as directed above, a fresh report from the 6th respondent, i.e., Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, shall be obtained by the 2nd respondent/authorised officer and the Director of the 6th respondent shall personally supervise the preparation of the report and submit a clear and authentic report.”
The RDO was instructed to pass fresh orders within four months, after affording hearing to both the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38444 of 2022 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1045 of 2023.
With respect to the Section 27A application already allowed, the Court directed that it be reconsidered in accordance with law, subject to the fresh decision on Form-5. It also provided that any conversion fee paid pursuant to the quashed order must be refunded on application by the petitioner.
Regarding the notice under Section 13 of the Act, the Court ordered: “All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P16 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken as directed above.”
The writ petitions were thus disposed of with the above observations and directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate), Sri. P.K. Soyuz, Sri. E.V. Babychan, Sri. Renjith Thampan (Senior Advocate), Smt. Maya M., Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar
For the Respondents: Additional Advocate General Sri. K.P. Jayachandran, Senior Government Pleader Sri. C.P. Pradeep, Standing Counsel Sri. Vishnu Chempazhantiyil
Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. v. District Collector, Thrissur & Ors.; T.N. Mukundan v. District Collector, Thrissur & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:65475
Case Number: W.P.(C) Nos. 38444 of 2022 & 1045 of 2023
Bench: Justice Viju Abraham
