Corrections Made In Basic Tax Register After Re-Survey Prior To Enactment Of Paddy Land & Wetland Act Are Valid: Kerala High Court

For context, Section 27 A of the Act prescribes that if any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purposes, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in the manner prescribed.

The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon dismissed the batch of writ appeals filed by the State challenging the reclassification of certain lands from nilam (paddy field) to purayidam (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register.

The writ arose from a single judge decision which considered whether the correction of BTR from nilam to purayidam, based on re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, requires compliance with the process of Section 27 A of the Act.

The Court thus had to determine whether the BTR has to be followed by the Revenue Authority in the event of inconsistency between the settlement register and the BTR.

In the present case, all the land was classified as nilam in the settlement register, whereas in the BTR it was classified as purayidam.

The State had argued that the reclassification entries were erroneous and that the lands should continue to be treated as nilam. However, the Bench observed that the Revenue Authorities had consciously changed the classification during re-surveys, and such corrections could not be brushed aside as mere mistakes.

“ It is not a mere descriptive change consequent upon a re-survey, but an acknowledgment of the nature of the land by declaring it as purayidam. The fact that the settlement register continues to describe the land as nilam is not decisive, since the Revenue Authorities had consciously taken a decision to record it as purayidam in the BTR.” the court observed

The court further observed that the land is continued to be treated as a purayidam, and no one has contended that as a mistaken entry and this indicates that the conversion has taken place prior to the 2008 Act.

"The land is continued to be treated as purayidam, and no one has contended that, on the strength of a mistaken entry, the landholders converted the land from nilam to purayidam after the enactmentof Act 28 of 2008. This indicates that the conversion had taken place prior to Act 28 of 2008 and that the land has since then remained as purayidam. That is precisely why none of the land in these cases found a place in the Data Bank." it noted. 

The State further pointed out that according to Rule 2(e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 the term "Basic Tax Register” includes the Settlement Register as well as the Supplementary Basic Tax Register, hence the judgment in Indira v Sub Collector [2020 (4) KLT 635] which was relied by the Single judge was erroneous.

The Court noted that rules came into force only in 2018, hence it does not have impact on entries made prior to that.

The court thus declared that the State cannot retrospectively demand conversion charges under Section 27A for lands which are treated as purayidam.

The bench noted that the Revenue officials have the power to include a land in Data Bank if the natural lie of the land shows it to be nilam or wetland.

“We make it clear that, if the Revenue Officials have a case that, notwithstanding the description of the property in the Basic Tax Register as purayidam, the natural lie of the land shows it to be nilam or wetland, it is open for them to proceed in accordance with law to include such land in the Data Bank” it added.

The bench observed that entries in the BTR or settlement register are not decisive and that for treating land as paddy land or wetland it must be established that the land comes within the meaning of Paddy Land and Wetland Act as on the date of enactment of Act of 2008.

The Court thus dismissed the appeals.

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v Thangal Kunju and Anr and connected matters

Case No : WA 1806/ 2023 and connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 590

Counsel for Appellants: K P Jayachandran (Addl. AG), S Renjith (Spl. GP),

Counsel for Respondents: M U Vijayalakshmi, K Jaju Babu (Sr.), Brijesh Mohan