The Kerala High Court has quashed orders allowing Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. to remove about 1.6 hectares of land in Thrissur from the paddy-land Data Bank. The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had failed to follow the mandatory procedure before granting the applications.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgement on August 11, while disposing of two appeals filed by Lulu against the Single Judge's August 27 judgement.
The dispute concerns 161.45 ares (about 1.6 hectares) in Survey Nos. 403, 405 and 406 of Ayyanthole village, Thrissur.
Lulu had filed Form 5 applications (the application used to seek removal of land from the Paddy Land Data Bank) before the RDO. The applications were allowed, after which Lulu paid fees under Section 27A (the provision governing permission and fee for utilisation/conversion of certain land for other purposes) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The dispute arose over whether the land was actually paddy land and whether it had been correctly included in the Data Bank.
The RDO had relied on reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC). However, the High Court found that the RDO had failed to first obtain the mandatory report from the Agricultural Officer.
Under Rule 4(4e) (which requires the RDO to obtain the Agricultural Officer's report on a Form 5 application), that report must precede consideration of the application. Rule 4(4f) (which governs the RDO's consideration and disposal of the application after receiving the report) then allows the RDO to proceed after personal inspection, relying on KSRSEC's report, or both.
The Bench held that this statutory sequence could not be bypassed merely because a KSRSEC report was available. “This Court evaluates administrative action, it does not assess the decision, but only the process that lead to it.”
The court said it could not itself decide whether the KSRSEC report was sufficient or dispense with the Agricultural Officer's report. Those matters had to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the statutory procedure.
The District Collector had separately issued an order under Section 13 (the provision empowering the authorities to direct restoration of unlawfully converted paddy land), directing Lulu to restore the disputed land to paddy-land status. The High Court also set aside that order.
It held that the Collector could act under Section 13 only after the underlying factual issue, whether the land had been converted before or after the 2008 Act came into force, was properly determined.
The court also noted allegations that the land had been used for paddy cultivation in recent years and that paddy subsidies had been received. Lulu disputed this, arguing that the subsidies related to other properties within the same survey numbers. The Bench said these factual issues remained unresolved.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to quash the RDO's Form 5 orders. It also upheld the setting aside of the subsequent Section 27A permission for Survey No. 405, since that permission could not survive after the Form 5 order was quashed.
The applications must now be reconsidered following the prescribed procedure.
The court directed:
KSRSEC to forward its existing reports to the authorised officer within two weeks.
The Agricultural Officer to submit the mandatory report within one month of requisition.
The authorised officer to decide Lulu's Form 5 applications within one month of receiving that report.
No fresh KSRSEC report is required.
The court said the Agricultural Officer's deadline is “peremptory in nature” and left all substantive claims of Lulu and the objector open for consideration by the competent authority.
The ruling therefore does not finally determine whether the disputed land is paddy land or whether it can be converted. It requires the authorities to decide that question afresh, after following the procedure prescribed by law.