Kerala High Court Quashes RDO's Order Allowing Conversion Of Lulu Hypermarket Thrissur Land Under Paddy Land Act; Orders Fresh Decision

The case concerned 161.45 ares of land in Survey Nos. 403, 405, and 406 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur. Lulu argued that the land had been converted long before the 2008 Act came into force and should not have been included in the official paddy land and wetland Data Bank.

In contrast, Mukundan claimed that the land formed part of the “Pannikkara Kini Kol Padavu padasekharam”, a large paddy field system, and there has been concerted efforts made by the owners of the land to illegally reclaim and convert the paddy land in violation of the provisions of the 2008, Act. He cited earlier stop memos, agricultural reports, and satellite imagery showing the land under cultivation even in 2019–2020.

The High Court found that the RDO's orders excluding Lulu's land from the Data Bank and permitting reclassification under Section 27A of the 2008 Act were passed without obtaining the mandatory report from the Agricultural Officer or the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC).

The Rule 4(4e) of the 2008 Rules requires the RDO to seek the Agricultural Officer's opinion by a report, before deciding a Form-5 application for deletion of land from the Data Bank. The Court observed that this safeguard was bypassed.

The Court has directed a fresh report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), strictly in accordance with the satellite images obtained for the relevant period, on the basis of which Form 5 Application filed by Lulu will be reconsidered.

The Court while quashing the RDO's order under Section 27 A of the Act, 2008, has directed any conversion fee already paid by the Lulu Group to be returned.

It has further directed that all proceedings initiated by the District Collector invoking power under Section 13 of the Act 2008 be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken after reconsideration

Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v The District Collector and connecter Matter

Case No: WP(C) 38444/ 2022 and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532

Counsel for Petitioner in WP(C) 384444/ 2022: S Sreekumar (Sr.), P K Soyuz, E V Babychan

Counsel for Petitioner in WP(C) 1045/ 2023: Renjith Thampan, Maya M , V M Krishnakumar

K P Jayachandran(Addl. A G), C P Pradeep(Sr. GP), Vishnu Chempazhanthiyil (SC-KSRSEC) were also present

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment