The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji agreed that the RDO did not follow the procedure under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, which mandates RDO to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer before deciding a Form-5 application for deletion of land from the Data Bank.

Since this procedural safeguard was not followed, the Bench was of the view that the Single Bench rightly set aside the RDO order that permitted commercial use of the land. The Division Bench, however, quashed a District Collector's order, which directed Lulu to restore the land to paddy land status, that was kept in abeyance by the Single Bench.

The case concerned 161.45 ares of land in Survey Nos. 403, 405, and 406 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur included in the Paddy Land Data Bank. Lulu wanted to remove the land from the Data Bank and preferred Form 5 applications as per the Rules.

After the RDO allowed the applications, Lulu applied under Section 27A of the Act to utilise the land and paid the fees authorising its conversion. This was approved by the competent Authority, leading to another order by the RDO. While so, the District Collector issued an order under Section 13 directing Lulu to restore the lands to paddy land status.

The District Collector's order was challenged by Lulu whereas the Section 27A order was challenged by “Objector” T.N. Mukundan, a member of the District Level Authorised Committee constituted under the Act. The Objector contended that the paddy land was only recently illegally converted.

The Single Judge disposed of both the pleas by quashing the RDO's orders and directing fresh consideration as per law. The Single Judge further ordered return of the fees paid by Lulu and kept the District Collector's order in abeyance until fresh decision by RDO. Additionally, the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) was directed to give a fresh report, strictly in accordance with the satellite images obtained for the relevant period. Aggrieved, Lulu preferred the present appeals.

While the appeals were pending, KSRSEC submitted fresh reports as ordered by the Division Bench. The Objector took a stand that KSRSEC opinion cannot be treated to be conclusive but did not oppose the picture and satellite imagery relied by the body. He argued that the Single Judge rightly decided the cases.

The senior counsel appearing for Lulu submitted that the Bench can finally dispose of the matter without letting the RDO reconsider the same since the KSRSEC report is before it. He argued that the Agricultural officer's report was not necessary here.

The KSRSEC opposed the Objector's objections to its report and contended that it has not violated any copyright or unauthorisedly used any images from Google Earth. It was also argued that physical verification of the lands was not necessary since “remote sensing” technique was used.

After hearing the parties, the Court was of the view that it would not be appropriate for it to evaluate the KSRSEC report or decide that the Agricultural Officer's report was not necessary. Referring to Rules 4(4e) and 4(4f), the Court observed:

“once an application under Form 5 is preferred by any person/entity, the RDO has to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer; and then, on receiving the same, to proceed to dispose of the said application, after making a personal inspection, or relying upon the report of the KSRSEC, or both. The procedure aforementioned is statutorily ordained and cannot be, in any manner, tinkered by us, for whatever reason that may be projected by the parties. It would be impermissible for this Court to substitute our wisdom for that of the legislative policy; and if we are to do so, it would render the entire process to be vitiated.”

Quashing the District Collector's order directing restoration to paddy land, the Court opined that such an order could not have been passed when the issue as to whether the lands were converted in violation of the Act had not been resolved.

The Court disposed of the appeals and ordered the KSRSEC to forwards its reports to the authorized officer within 2 weeks. The Agricultural Officer was directed to submit report within 1 month whereas the authorized officer was directed to dispose of the Form 5 applications without delay, within 1 month of Agricultural Officer's report.

Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and Ors. & connected case

Case No: WA No. 2369 & 2294 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

Counsel for the appellants: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), E.V. Babychan

Counsel for the respondents: .S. Kannan - Senior G.P., Anoop V. Nair - State Attorney,

Renjith Thampan (Sr.), V.M. Krishnakumar, S. Vishnu, M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.) - KSRSEC

Click to Read/Download Judgment