The Kerala High Court, in the Full Bench decision in Sabeena E.K. v. District Collector [2022 (2) KLT 499], has observed that a buyer of paddy land after the enforcement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, cannot seek reclamation of paddy land for residential purposes.
The Legal Issue
The central dispute revolved around Section 5(3)(i) of the Act, which allows the “owner of a paddy land” to seek exemption for the construction of a residential building.
The legal question in the case was whether a person who purchased a small fragment of a larger paddy field after the Act came into force (August 12, 2008) could claim the benefit of reclamation for residential purpose.
The Full Bench Ruling in the Case
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the right to reclaim paddy land for residential purposes is not a right that runs with the land for all future purchasers.
Instead, the benefit of Section 5(3)(i) is reserved exclusively for those who were owners of the land as of August 12, 2008.
If subsequent purchasers were allowed to claim exemptions, it would encourage the slicing of large paddy fields into small residential plots, eventually leading to the total disappearance of wetlands.
The Act is an environmental and social welfare legislation aimed at food security. Therefore, exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the claimant and in favor of the conservation of the land.
Who Can Reclaim?
| Scenario | Eligibility for Reclamation |
|---|---|
| Owned the land before 12.08.2008 | Eligible (Subject to other statutory conditions). |
| Inherited the land from a 2008 owner | Eligible (Legal heirs step into the shoes of the 2008 owner). |
| Purchased the land after 12.08.2008 | NOT Eligible for residential exemption under Sec 5(3) of the 2008 Act. |
Practical Implications
A person who bought 5 or 10 cents of “Nilam” (Paddy Land) after 2008, hoping to build a house, is now legally stranded even if they have no other land. The judgment in Sabeena E.K. prevents the Collector from granting permission for reclamation.
The judgement in Sabeena E.K. applies strictly to land included in the Data Bank as paddy land or wetland. In regard to the unnotified land (land not included in the Data Bank but described as ‘Nilam’ in BTR), the change of occupancy remain different as described under Section 27A of the Act.
Conclusion
The Sabeena E.K. judgment reinforces the principle that the 2008 Act is not merely a procedural hurdle but a substantive bar. Buying a piece of “Nilam” after the enforcement of the 2008 Act with the intent to build a home is at risk.
