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 High Court overturned the two judge bench judgment in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala (2019), which had previously permitted subsequent purchasers to seek reclamation.
The Legal Issue
The central dispute in the Sabeena E K judgment revolved around Section 5(3)(i) of the 2008 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 in the Sabeena E K case 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) of the 2008 Act 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 |
|---|---|
| Who owned the land before 12.08.2008 | Eligible for reclamation (Subject to other statutory conditions). |
| Who inherited the land from a 2008 owner | Eligible for reclamation (Legal heirs step into the shoes of the 2008 owner). |
| Who purchased the land from others after 12.08.2008 | NOT Eligible for reclamation, even for residential purpose under Sec 5(3) of the 2008 Act. |
Practical Implications
A person who bought 5 or 10 cents of “Nilam” (Paddy Land) after 12.08.2008, 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 to such land owners.
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 remains different as described under Section 27A of the 2008 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.
The land owners who acquired land before 12.08.2008 retain the right to apply for conversion, but those acquiring land after this date has no right to get it reclaimed under the 2008 Act.
