Permission To Cultivate Non-Paddy Crops Doesn't Authorise Land Conversion Or Tenure Change: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that an order issued under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order), even if it permits cultivation of crops other than paddy, cannot be construed as permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of land or for alteration of land tenure in revenue records

Justice P M Manoj was delivering a judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner claimed that an order issued under Clause 7 of the KLR Order would constitute a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Order.

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 105.81 Ares of property along with 50 Ares with a building in Kuttanadu Taluk. Originally, he had obtained permission under Clause 6(2) for converting a limited extent of land to provide access to the property having an extent of 50 Ares.

Even though this permission was given, it was later noticed that the petitioner reclaimed more land than directed. This led to an inspection of the said property to take necessary steps against unauthorized reclamation.

This inspection led to issuance of an order(Ext. P5) which stated that the land is agricultural and necessary steps to cultivate non-paddy crops like plantain, vegetables and tubers must be taken. It was also stated that permission for construction in the property should not be granted.

Treating the order issued under Clause 7 as declaration that land is not paddy land and not suitable for paddy cultivation, the petitioner preferred writ petition for changing the tenure of the land which was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach District Collector for changing the nature of the land. The Collector disposed of the application finding that no change was required in the revenue records.

Writ petitions were filed against these disposals which was later disposed of by the Court allowing to approach the respective statutory authorities for permission to utilize the land for other purposes different from cultivation, recording of the nature of the land and reassessment of tax.

In the present petition, the Court examined whether directions issued by the revenue authorities under Clause 7 of the KLU Order, requiring or permitting cultivation of non-paddy crops can be treated as a deemed permission under Clause 6(2).

It has also examined whether this Order entitles the landowner to seek change of land classification and tax reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act without invoking Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

The Court noted that an order under Clause 7 is a preventive measure intended to curb unauthorised land conversion and protect agricultural land. Such an order does not amount to a statutory permission for land conversion under Clause 6(2).

The Court further observed that such an order which directed the cultivation of certain non-paddy crops in the land was issued by the Sub Collector when the petitioner unauthorizedly converted a large extent of land.

“Instead of directing the restoration of the land, the Sub Collector directed the utilization of the said land for other cultivation. The petitioner misinterpreted this as permission under the KLU Order, which he believes entitles him to convert the land in the revenue records.” Court said.

The petitioner has also relied on Section 6 of the Kerala Land Tax, and stated that the land is not cultivable as mentioned in the order issued under Clause 7.

The Court rejected the contention of the petitioner, and observed that the benefits under Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules and Section 6A of the Land Tax Act are available only where valid Clause 6(2) permission exists.

The Court noted that the only remedy available to the petitioner to change the tenure of the remaining land is to approach the statutory authority under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

“The petitioner may prefer an application under Section 27A, and the respective authorities shall consider the same within a period of six months from the date of preferring such an application.” Court added.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 26332/ 2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

Counsel for Petitioner: Roy Chacko, K C Vincent

Counsel for Respondents: Y Jafarkhan (Sr. GP)