Sri. Shibu K vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2026

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sri. Shibu K vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2026

The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42638 of 2025, filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The pleadings in the writ petition in brief are as follows:

The appellant-petitioner is the owner in possession of a wetland having an extent of 0.50 square metres in Re.Sy.No.11/4-

3 and 1.74 Ares in Re.Sy.No.12/2-2 in Block No.14 of Kallelibhagom Village. Evidencing the same, the appellant produced Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 10.05.2022. The 5th respondent, Subairkutty, is the title holder of 11.3 Ares of wetland in Sy.No.11/2 and Sy.No.11/2-1 in Block No.14 of Kallelibhagom Village. The property of the appellant is adjoining the property of the 5th respondent.

2.1. In Ext.P2 proceedings dated 04.06.2019 initiated by the 1st respondent District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, ('Paddy Land Act' for short), the 5th respondent was directed to WA NO. 197 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:27183 restore the land to its original position, finding that the land had been converted into dry land. But the 5th respondent, using his political and financial power, influenced the Revenue and Agricultural Department Officials and removed the property from the Data Bank as per proceedings dated 11.12.2020. The appellant pleads that the erstwhile properties situated in Re.Sy.Nos.11 and 12 of Kallelibhagom Village are wetlands cultivated with paddy and included in the Data Bank and other village records. Though some other owners of the neighbouring properties approached the revenue authorities for removal of their properties from the Data Bank, their applications were rejected, observing that those properties are wetlands.

2.2. The 6th respondent, Smt.Shyla.P submitted an application before the 1st respondent for a No Objection Certificate ('NOC' for short) to start a petroleum retail outlet in the property of the 5th respondent. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 detailed objection dated 04.10.2024, challenging the application submitted by the 6th respondent, highlighting Ext.P2 proceedings of the 1 st respondent. The 2nd respondent, Additional District Magistrate conducted an enquiry through the Deputy Collector (LR) and WA NO. 197 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:27183 solicited objections of the neighbouring property owners. While the application for NOC was pending before the Additional District Magistrate, the 6th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.45976 of 2024 for the disposal of the said application within a time-bound manner by arraying only the officials as parties to that writ petition. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment dated 21.01.2025, disposed of that writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the application for NOC in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, after giving the 6th respondent and also the 3rd respondent an opportunity of hearing.

2.3. The 2nd respondent, upon hearing the appellant and all the other stakeholders, and after obtaining an enquiry report from the Deputy Collector (LR), rejected the NOC. It was specifically observed in Ext.P5 rejection order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent that the conversion of the property as garden land (dry land) as per Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is illegal, as the wetland was converted only after the coming into force of the Act on 12.08.2008. Being aggrieved, the 6th respondent filed W.P.(C)No.19371 of 2025 before this Court, stating that the WA NO. 197 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:27183 direction in Ext.P2 was complied with and therefore the 1 st respondent may be directed to consider her application for NOC afresh. According to the appellant, the 6th respondent has not complied with the directions in Ext.P2 order, which would be evident from Ext.P6 extract of the relevant page of the Thandaper Register. By suppressing the above facts, the respondents 5 and 6, using illegal means, influenced the Local Level Monitoring Committee and got the removal order from the Data Bank, which is liable to be set aside. By misleading this Court, the 6 th respondent obtained Ext.P7 judgment dated 01.07.2025 in W.P.(C)No.19371 of 2025 quashing Ext.P5 order. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5, taking note of the removal of land from the Data Bank and change of nature of the land as evident from the tax receipt.

2.4 The appellant further states that the license to run a petroleum retail outlet was granted to the 6th respondent overlooking the guidelines regarding the distance rule from the nearest point of water bodies and also the protection of surface water bodies irrespective of utility from any possible contamination. According to the appellant, the land in question is WA NO. 197 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:27183 situated in the middle of the paddy field, and therefore, the 4 th respondent ought not have given NOC for starting a petroleum retail outlet.

2.5. The appellant states that respondents 5 and 6, using undue influences on the revenue officials and agricultural officials, converted the wetland into garden land and removed it from the Data Bank, overlooking the proceedings of the 1 st respondent to restore the converted land into its original position. Moreover, the 4th respondent overlooked the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, which were duly communicated by the Central Pollution Control Board for issuing NOC by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P10 circular dated 29.03.2023. Therefore, the order issued by the 2 nd respondent granting NOC to the 6th respondent for starting a retail petroleum outlet is illegal and liable to be quashed. With these pleadings, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.42638 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To issue a writ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P8 order issued by 2nd respondent.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to call for the WA NO. 197 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:27183 records pertaining to the issuance of Ext.P5 order.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to call for the records pertaining to the issuance of Ext.P8 order".

3. The respondents 5 and 6 filed a counter affidavit dated 19.11.2025 in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(d) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"2. Para 1 of the writ petition is false and misleading. 5 th respondent is the title holder of 11.3 ares of wet in sy no:

11/2 and 11/2-1 of Kallelibhagom village is false because the 5th respondent has changed the nature of land in the revenue records and the present re-sy no:s are 11/11 and 11/2 which is shown as converted land Purayidom in the revenue records. Copy of the tax receipt dated 19.09.25 is produced as Exhibit R6(a). petitioner's adjoining properties are in the eastern side - purayidom (Sy no:11/8) west- Purayidom sy no: 11/1, North PWD road, South-11/10 Purayidom and South East-11/13 and 11/14 converted land. In all these properties there are house and shops.

3. It is false that the 5th respondent by using his political and financial influence removed the property from the data bank. the 5th respondent purchased this property from one Nabeesa Beevi. The 5th respondent's predecessor has unload single load of building waste in the property, because after construction of the road the property became low lying. In compliance with the Ext P2 order, she removed WA NO. 197 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:27183 the building waste unloaded. Copy of the report of the village officer dated 3.6.20 is produced as Ext.R6(b). Moreover after taking the KSREC report only the petitioner's property was removed from the data bank. Copy of the report of the village officer to the district collector dated 13.07.20 is produced as Ext.R6(c). If they are aggrieved by the allegations made in para 3 of the writ petition, they have sought the remedies available as per law.

4. Para 4 of the writ petition is false. It is humbly submitted that as per Petroleum Rules nowhere it is stated that the objection of the neighbours need to be considered. This court in empty number of cases held that the objection of neighbours need not be considered, if the Oil Company is eligible to get the No Objection Certificate. The 5 th respondent has not obtained any orders suppressing any proceedings. I have no information that the petitioner has filed any complaint before the 2nd respondent and no copy was served upon me. In Ext.P4 judgment this court directed to hear the 3rd respondent and the 6th respondent, since they are the only necessary parties as per the Petroleum rules.

5. It is true that the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P5 rejecting the application for NOC certificate. There is no bar in considering Form 5 application when section 13 restoration proceedings are pending. The form 5 was considered on the basis of the KSREC report and site inspection and after finding that there are standing trees in the property which are more than 25 years old. In Ext.P5 the finding of the 2nd respondent that the property can be WA NO. 197 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:27183 used only for agricultural purpose is illegal. After a lapse of more than 5 years when I approached for getting NOC the 2nd respondent found that the conversion of property as garden land was illegal. This court after taking instructions only set aside Ext.P5.

6. It is to be noted that from the report of the village officer itself it is clear that the 5th respondent has deposited only 1 load of building waste and the same was removed and the property was restored. Then after taking the KSREC report the property was converted. It is only to mislead the court that the petitioner has raised an allegation that the 6th respondent approached this court with unclean hands and obtained Ext.P7 judgment. It is false to say that there are two streams passing on either side of the 5th respondent's property. Copy of the plan showing the properties in 50- meter radius issued by the thodiyoor grama panchayat is produced as Ext.R6(d).

7. The 5th respondent's property was converted after complying all the legal proceedings including the KSREC report. The 5th respondent has already restored the land as part of compliance of Ext.P2 and after physical inspection and KSREC report, the property was removed from data bank. On physical verification it is found that there standing trees which are more than 25 years old. Ext.P10 has no relevance here. Moreover no NOC is required from the 4 th respondent. If there is any violation of official memorandum issued by the Central Pollution Control Board dated 07.01.20 by the petroleum retail outlet, then they can take action.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 11 2026:KER:27183

8. Grounds A to L raised in the writ petition is not tenable and hence denied. The grounds raised in the writ petitioner are already answered. Ground L is raised without properly understanding Ext. P10 and the judgments of the apex court. All the other grounds raised in the writ petition are already answered. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has filed complaints before all the authorities and the village officer, 2nd respondent and 4th respondent visited the site and measured and found that the property is fit for location approval. Petitioner's mother's sister's daughter in law (who is the wife of the Personal Assistant of Kovoor Kunjumon MLA ) is running a petroleum retail outlet owned by Nayara Energy LTD near to my outlet, petitioner as their benami filed all these complaints and present writ petition. They got the letter of intent one year after the I got letter of intent. But they finished construction of the outlet, my outlet just started construction, only because of the complaint of the petitioner".

4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 25.11.2025 in the writ petition opposing the pleadings in the writ petition, and the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"2. It is submitted that an area of 00.60 Ares, 03.85 ares, 06.25 ares comprised in Resurvey No. 11/11, 11/12 of Block 14 of Kallelibhagom village in Karunagapally Taluk is owned and possessed by Sri. Subairkutty S/o Ibrahimkutty, K K Villa, Mynagapally Village, spouse of the petitioner as per Thandaper No. 26094. An application for the NOC WA NO. 197 OF 2026 12 2026:KER:27183 regarding the construction and functioning of Retail Petroleum Outlet in the above mentioned land had been submitted by the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ernakulam as per application No. RET.EKM.NOC.KALLELIBHGAM dated 05.01.2024.

3. In regard to this District Police Chief (Kollam City), District Fire Officer, District Supply Officer, Tahsiidar, Karunagapally had submitted reports as per direction given from this office District Police chief (Kollam City), District Fire officer, District Supply officer ,Kollam had submitted report in favour of granting NOC to the retail petroleum outlet. Several petitions were also received in against the application submitted for granting the NOC. Tahsildar, Karunagapally had reported that on verification of the village records it 19 perceived that 00.60 Ares, 03.85 Ares, 06.25 Ares comprised in Resurvey No. 11/2, 11/11, 11/12 are recorded as "Nilam" & Purayidam-respectively, also mentioned that the above said lands were converted as per the proceedings A6-294/20, dated. 12.11.2020 of Sub collector, Kollam. Tahsildar, Karunagapally had reported that, Resurvey No.11/2 (04.45 Ares)was subdivided into Resurvey No. 11/11 having and area of 3.85. ares, Resurvey No.11/2-1-1 (06.83Ares) was subdivided into Resurvey No 11/12 having an area of 06.25 ares and the remaining area of 00.58 ares comprised in Resurvey No. 11/2-1-1; retained to be as "Nila" as per the proceedings D3-1898/20, dated 07.12.2020 of Tahsildar, Karunagapally.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 13 2026:KER:27183

4. In accordance to all the reports and petitions received, the petitioners, Company representative, Tahsildar, Karunagapally were heard 04.10.2024. In regard to the report submitted by Tahsildar Karunagapally, a clarification report were called out from Deputy Collector (LR) of this office in regard to the rationale in the issue of order L10/110642/2018, dated 04.06.2019 under section 13 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act 2008 and on the prospect |of any construction on_the land converted as per this Act.

5. Deputy Collector (LR) vide letter DCKLM/9428/2024/L10 dated 24.10.2024 DCKLM/896/2024-M7 1/413648/2025 informed that, an area of 04.45-Ares of land comprised in Resurvey No. 11/2, of Block 14 of Kallelibhagom village in Karunagapally Taluk was found to be converted illegally and subsequent to this District Collector, Kollam had given a direction as per order L10/110642/2018, dated 04.06.2019 to restore the same. It was reported that the District Collector had issued this order as the said land, which was included in the data bank, was converted illegally after the commencement date and as per the norms of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act 2008, Amendment Act 2018, only the Lands that are converted before the year of 2008 will be allowed to convert under section 27(A) of the said act. Clarification were also given on that, if the proposed land is eliminated from the data bank and conversion had been granted to the same land, action taken by the Sub Collector, Kollam be illegitimate moreover, - granting ' permission 'to the lands that are converted after WA NO. 197 OF 2026 14 2026:KER:27183 the year of 2008 for any other purposes rather than paddy cultivation is illicit and the issue of NOC for the functioning of the retall petroleum outlet in the land comprised in Resurvey No. 11/2, of Block 14 of Kallelibhagom Village in Karunagapally Taluk will be unlawful as per Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act 2008.

6. Taking into consideration of the clarification report received from the Deputy Collector (LR), application submitted by the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ernakulam for the NOC regarding the construction and functioning of Retail Petroleum Outlet in the land comprised in Resurvey No. 11/11, 11/12 of Block 14 of Kallelibhagom Village in Karunagapally Taluk was dismissed vide proceedings DCKLM/896/2024-M7 dated 04.04.2025.

7. Against the order of rejection, Smt. Shyla.P, W/o Subair Kutty, K.K Villa, Kadappa, Mynagappally, filed W.P.(C) No. 19371 of 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. As per the judgment dated 01.07.2025 in the said Writ Petition, by setting aside the order dated 04-04-2025, vide proceedings No. DCKLM/896/2024-M7 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, and taking note of the fact that the land in question has been removed from the Data Bank, as well as considering the change in the nature of the land as evidenced by the land tax receipts produced by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court has directed the second respondent, the Additional District Magistrate Kollam, to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh order within a period of six weeks.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 15 2026:KER:27183

8. In compliance with the judgement in W.P(c) No. 19371/2025, the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, conducted a site inspection on 29.08.2025, and the applicant has also produced the sketch as required.

9. Relying on the favourable reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, the District Police Chief, Kollam 'City, the District Supply Officer, and the District Fire Officer, and in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No. 19371/2025, as well as based on the site inspection conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, and after hearing the concemed parties, it was ordered that the application submitted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for establishing a petroleum outlet in Karunagappally Taluk, Kallelibhagom Village. Block No. 14, Re-survey Nos. 11/11 and 11/12, be allowed, subject to the condition that the applicant shall strictly adhere to the provisions of the Petroleum Rules. Accordingly, NOC (PESO ISDA No. P/KL/KLM/NA/61(1944)) was granted. The above contentions may be taken into consideration for the proper disposal of the Writ Petition".

5. By filing I.A.No.1 of 2025, the appellant sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the writ petition to inspect the property in question and report on the matters set forth in that interlocutory application. To that commission application, respondents 5 and 6 filed a counter affidavit dated 25.11.2025, producing therewith Exts.R6(e) to R6(h) documents.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 16 2026:KER:27183 Thereafter, the learned Single Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner who filed the report dated 01.12.2025, after inspecting the property in question, producing Annexures C1 to C5 photographs and Annexure C6 Scene Mahazar along with that report. By filing I.A.No.3 of 2025, the appellant produced Exts.P11 and P12 documents in the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant produced Exts.P13 to P16 documents along with I.A.No.4 of 2025, and Exts.P17 to P19 documents along with I.A.No.1 of 2026 in the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides, the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2026, dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of that judgment read thus:

"6. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6, only if there is a canal or wetland recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance of 50 meters can the NOC be rejected by the District Authority. Even in the 'Thandaper' Accounts produced by the petitioner, the remaining extent after conversion, having 0.60 Ares and 0.58 Ares retained in survey Nos.11/2 and 11/2-1-1 is recorded only as paddy land and not as wetland. Paddy land and wetland are different. The existence of wetland within the prohibited distance alone is relevant to deny NOC as per Ext.P9 Guidelines.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 17 2026:KER:27183

7. The existence of two canals on the western and eastern sides of the proposed property is proved by the Commissioner Report, but that alone is not sufficient to interfere with Ext.P8. The said canals have to be recorded in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to prove that those canals are recorded in the revenue records. The learned Government Pleader also confirmed that there are no canals recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the proposed site.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that out of that, 2.6 Ares is retained as a canal for irrigation purposes in the Data Bank in Re-survey no.11/2-1. It is not clear whether the said 2.6 Ares comes within the prohibited distance. Even if the said 2.6 Ares of land comes within the prohibited distance of 50 meters, merely because the said land is shown as canal in the LLMC Report is not sufficient. It has to be recorded in the revenue records to deny the Noc.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 13 proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act for illegal conversion is pending against the respondent No.5. I make it clear that I have not considered anything with respect to the legality of those proceedings in this Writ Petition.

10. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with Ext.P8 Order."

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 18 2026:KER:27183

8. Heard Sri.Adv.G.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent and the Sri.Hanilkumar M.H, the learned Special Government Pleader.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate Ext.P2 restoration order issued under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act and its binding effect on the property of the 5th respondent. By pointing out various provisions under the Paddy Land Act, the learned counsel vehemently submitted that once the land is restored to its original position, which was reclaimed violating the provision of the Paddy Land Act, it will go back to its original nature and therefore respondents 5 and 6 cannot contend that the land in question is not a paddy land. By pointing out the provisions under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, the learned counsel argued that the said provisions are applicable only to the unnotified land and the same is not applicable to the present case since the land in question is included in the Data Bank and it is not an unnotified land. It is the argument of the learned counsel for WA NO. 197 OF 2026 19 2026:KER:27183 the appellant that an order passed under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act by the 1st respondent is an order in perpetuity and therefore the land in question cannot go back prior to the stage of Ext.P2 order. By pointing out the Commission report dated 01.12.2025 found in the writ petition, the learned counsel argued that the land adjoining the disputed land is seen as 'nilam' in the revenue records as per the said report. The presence of water bodies on the adjoining western land is also noted by the Commissioner in the said report. As far as the locus standi of the appellant to file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that though the appellant is not a person residing within the prohibited distance from the property in question, since the violation allegedly committed by respondents 5 and 6 is a statutory violation and an Act that would affect the environment, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, at the instance of the appellant.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 would argue that the proceedings by way of Ext.P2 order was initiated by the District Collector under Section 13 of the WA NO. 197 OF 2026 20 2026:KER:27183 Paddy Land Act, against the property of the 5th respondent alleging reclamation of the Paddy land by dumping quarry waste, only for the reason that the land is included in the Data Bank under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act prepared by the Grama Panchayat. Ext.P2 order was passed on 04.06.2019. In the original Data Bank published on 17.03.2012, the property in question was included. But, in the meeting of the Local Level Monitoring Committee held on 14.11.2018, it was decided to remove the aforesaid 3.85 Ares of property of the 5th respondent from the Data Bank. Similarly, in the meeting held on 03.07.2019 of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, it was decided to remove 6.25 Ares of property of Muhammed Kunju situated in Survey No.11/2-1, which was shown as adjoining property of the 5th respondent's property in the Data Bank. Consequently, the property mentioned in Ext.P2 order of the District Collector was removed from the Data Bank, and therefore, at the time of passing of that order, the land in question was an unnotified land. Therefore, the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is in accordance with the law. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that the Data Bank is an evolving one from WA NO. 197 OF 2026 21 2026:KER:27183 time to time by including and excluding the lands therein. Therefore, the unchallenging of Ext.P2 order passed under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act by the District Collector will not have any bearing on the contentions of the respondents 5 and 6, since a decision was already taken by the Local Level Monitoring Committee under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act. It is the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that Ext.P2 order passed under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act is only a summary order, and it is not in perpetuity. By pointing out Exts.R6(b) letter dated 03.06.2000 and R6(c) report of the Village Officer submitted to the District Collector on 13.07.2000, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the land in question had already been removed from the Data Bank. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

11. The learned Special Government Pleader would argue that while going through the reliefs sought in the writ petition, practically the relief sought by the appellant is to quash Ext.P8 order issued by the 2nd respondent, granting NOC to the 6th respondent for starting a petroleum outlet in the property in WA NO. 197 OF 2026 22 2026:KER:27183 question. By pointing out the pleadings in the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the appellant was personally aggrieved by Ext.P8 decision, and unless he is personally aggrieved, he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. By pointing out the Ground F in the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that according to the appellant the 2nd respondent rejected the application for NOC as per Ext.P5 order, considering Ext.P3 objection and the report filed by the Deputy Collector (LR) that the conversion of the land was after coming into force of the Paddy Land Act, 2008 on 12.08.2008. But Ext.R6(h) report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre dated 26.04.2018 would show that the land was already converted before the commencement of the Act. As far as the contention regarding the grant of NOC, violating the Paddy Land Act raised as Ground G in the writ appeal on the ground of violation of the distance rule, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the remedy available to the appellant in that case is to file a review or appeal against that order. As far as Ground H pertaining to the grant of NOC and WA NO. 197 OF 2026 23 2026:KER:27183 license, violating the Paddy Land Act, raised in the writ appeal is concerned, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the said objection was considered in Ext.P8 order and found against the appellant. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, no water bodies are pointed out by the appellant adjacent to the property in question, and therefore, there is no violation of the statutory provisions.

12. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and appreciated the rival submission made at the Bar. To decide the disputed issues in this writ appeal, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions under the Paddy Land Act, 2008.

13. Section 2(iii) of the said Act defines "Conversion" as the situation whereby land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose.

14. Section 2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act defines "paddy land" as all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied WA NO. 197 OF 2026 24 2026:KER:27183 constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals.

15. Section 2(xv) of the Paddy Land Act defines "reclamation" as such an act or series of acts whereby a paddy land or a wetland as defined in this Act is converted irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means.

16. Section 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land Act defines "wetland" as land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers.

17. Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act deals with the power of the District Collector, which reads thus:

"(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the (District Collector) may take such action, as he deems fit, without prejudice to the prosecution proceedings taken under the Act, to restore the original position of (any paddy land or wetland) reclaimed violating the provisions of this Act, and realize the cost incurred in this regard from the WA NO. 197 OF 2026 25 2026:KER:27183 holder or occupier of (the said paddy land or wetland), as the case may be, so reclaimed after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2) Where the decision is to restore the original position of paddy land or wetland, the District Collector may take any action in such manner, as may be prescribed, to dispose clay, sand, earth etc. removed from the paddy land or wetland or any brick or tile made of all or any of them, in the process of such restoration and cause to remit the sums collected to the Fund".

18. Sections 3 and 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act, read thus:

"Section 3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation.

Section 5(4) The Committee shall perform the following functions, namely:--

(i) to prepare the data-bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or WA NO. 197 OF 2026 26 2026:KER:27183 Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner as may be prescribed, and exhibit the same for the information of the public, in the respective Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation Office and in the Village Office/Offices;

Provided that any person aggrieved by the entries in the data bank so exhibited, may prefer an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of such application within a period of three months after following such procedure, as may be prescribed, and in case the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the land included as paddy land or wetland in the said data bank is not paddy land or wetland, it shall be deemed to have been removed from the data bank.

(ii) to make alternate arrangements under Section 16 where a paddy land is left fallow without taking steps in spite of the instructions given by the Committee under item

(iv) of sub-section (3);

(iii) to prepare detailed guidelines for the protection of the paddy lands/wetlands in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee;

(v) to perform such other functions, as may be prescribed from time to time."

19. Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, reads thus:

"Change of nature of unnotified land.--

(1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such WA NO. 197 OF 2026 27 2026:KER:27183 land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:

Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

(3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may prescribed:

Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.

(4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary WA NO. 197 OF 2026 28 2026:KER:27183 to ensure such cultivation:

Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies.

(5) No permission under this section shall be necessary where the purpose for which the unnotified land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilized or attempted to be utilized is for paddy cultivation. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), no permission under this section shall be necessary for constructing a residential building having a maximum area of 120 square meters in a maximum extent of 4.04 ares of land or a commercial building having a maximum area of 40 square meters in a maximum extent of 2.02 ares of land:

Provided that the construction of a housing complex or complexes or flats or multi-storied residential complexes shall not come within the meaning of residential building specified in this sub-section:

Provided further that this exemption shall be granted only once.

(7) The exemption under sub-section (6) shall be applicable only to owners of unnotified lands under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018:

Provided that if the area of the residential building or commercial building exempted under sub-section (6) is WA NO. 197 OF 2026 29 2026:KER:27183 subsequently increased by new extension, the exemption under sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the owner of the land as on the date of detection of the new extension shall be liable to pay fee as per sub-section (3). (8) Where conversion of an unnotified land is required for any public purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall submit a report to Government outlining the measures to be adopted to ensure that the reclamation shall not disrupt the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, and shall suggest such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure this.

(9) The Government may, on receipt of a report under sub-

section (8), issue permission to reclaim unnotified land for public purpose:

Provided that where permission is granted, the Government may make necessary modifications to the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer as deemed fit:

Provided further that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

(10) The order issued under sub-section (2) and (9) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the lands and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded, the extent of the land in which water conservancy measures are to be adopted by the applicant and a sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order.

WA NO. 197 OF 2026 30 2026:KER:27183 (11) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, either suo motu or on the application of any aggrieved party, cancel any order issued under sub-section (2) if the conditions specified in the order issued therein are not complied by the applicant, either fully or partially. (12) No order of cancellation under sub-section (11) shall be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer unless the applicant thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(13) Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act".

20. The appellant-petitioner is challenging the issuance of Ext.P8 NOC to the 6th respondent, starting a petroleum outlet in the property of the 5th respondent, contending that the property in which the petroleum outlet was sought to be installed is a paddy land and it cannot be converted into a garden or dry land and the order for the same was obtained by respondents 5 and 6 by influencing the authorities concerned. From the pleadings and materials, we notice that in order to substantiate his claim, the appellant is relying on Ext.P2 order of reclamation issued by the District Collector on 04.06.2019, which, according to the appellant, is an order in perpetuity and therefore the land cannot WA NO. 197 OF 2026 31 2026:KER:27183 be thereafter taken out from the Data Bank and its nature cannot be changed as a dry land. It is also the contention of the appellant that the land is situated near the water bodies, which can be discernible from Ext.P15 list of properties included in the Data Bank and from the commission report filed in the writ petition.

21. On the other hand, the stand of the contesting respondents is that Ext.P2 order is not an order in perpetuity, but it was an order passed by the 1st respondent, District Collector, only for the reason that the property was included in the Data Bank as a wetland. But the Data Bank is an evolving one from which the properties can be taken out as well as added, if it is needed. The Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is the competent authority to decide the nature of the land, has already taken a decision to remove the property in question from the Data Bank, and that was approved by the 2nd respondent, Additional District Magistrate. It is complying with all the legal formalities, Ext.P8 NOC was granted by the 2nd respondent and there is no evidence to say that any water body is situated near the land within the prohibited distance. It is also the contention of the contesting respondents that the appellant has no locus standi to WA NO. 197 OF 2026 32 2026:KER:27183 maintain a writ petition since he is not an aggrieved person.

22. Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which deals with NOC, reads thus:

"(1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, an applicant for a new licence other than a licence in Forms III, XI, XVII, XVIII, or XIX shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection, to the applicant receiving a licence for the site proposed and the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate [in the proforma specified in sub-rule (7)] to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form IX.

Note.-- The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence.

(2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal.

(3) The Chief Controller or the Controller as the case may be, may refer an application not accompanied by certificate granted under sub-rule (1) to the District Authority for his observations.

(4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates to the Chief Controller or the Controller as the case may be, that any licence which WA NO. 197 OF 2026 33 2026:KER:27183 has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted, such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government.

(5) The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing No OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for issue or refusal of the NOC, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months form the date of receipt of application by him.

(6) Where the location of storage of petroleum is within the notified area of a Port or Airport or Railways under the control of the State, or establishment of Indian Space Research Organisation or Department of Atomic Energy, No Objection Certificate from the District Authority referred to in sub-rules (1) to (5) shall not be required:

Provided that consent for establishment of petroleum storage from the competent authority of concerned notified area or head of the establishment, as the case may be, is obtained.

(7) The district authority shall issue a no objection certificate in the following pro forma, namely -

Pro forma No Objection Certificate [See Rule 144] No............................

Date............

Subject: No objection certificate With reference to the WA NO. 197 OF 2026 34 2026:KER:27183 application No........dated ........submitted by.............and in pursuance of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, there is no objection for granting licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to Shri/Smt./M/s. ............................... address ................................. for storage of petroleum products in their premises at Survey No.............../Gat No........../Khasra No..................Plot No............, Village............Taluka/Tehsil ...............................District..............State....................... .........................as shown in the site plan duly endorsed and enclosed herewith.

(1) The following particulars have been considered while issuing this no objection certificate, that--

(a) possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and authorisation from land owner or lease holder for developing premises under these rules for storage of petroleum products;

(b) interest of public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and the mitigating measures, if any, is provided;

(d) conformity of proposal to the local or area development planning;

(e) accessibility of the site to fire tenders in case of emergency and preparedness of fire services for combating the emergencies;

(f)genuineness of purpose.

(g) any other matter pertinent to public safety; Signature of the district authority issuing no objection WA NO. 197 OF 2026 35 2026:KER:27183 certificate with his office seal (in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police and for any other place the District Magistrate) Note.-- The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence".

23. The perusal of Ext.P8 order dated 17.09.2025 granting NOC to the 6th respondent for starting a petroleum outlet in the property of the 5th respondent, it can be seen that the 2nd respondent has passed that order after obtaining comments from all the stakeholders as mandated under Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules. Admittedly, the appellant herein is not residing within the prohibited distance from the property where the petroleum outlet is to be installed. The contention of the appellant is that since the conversion of the paddy land into a garden land without following the procedure established by law, or in other words, which is prohibited by law, is an act that affects the environment, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to institute a writ petition. Therefore, in order to give an answer to the disputed question of locus standi of the appellant, the point to be considered is whether there is any merit in the contention of the appellant that the land WA NO. 197 OF 2026 36 2026:KER:27183 is ordered to be removed from the data bank by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which was approved by the 2nd respondent, Additional District Magistrate, by violating the provisions of law.

24. From Ext.P15 produced along with I.A.No.4 of 2025 by the appellant, we notice that the property in question having an extent of 3.85 Ares in Survey No.11/2 in the ownership of the 5 th respondent and the adjoining extent of 7.67 Ares in Survey No.11/2-1 in the possession of one Muhamed Kunju are excluded from the Data Bank on the basis of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. By the said notification, only a stream having 0.60 Ares in the property of the 5th respondent and a stream having 1.18 Ares in the property of the Muhamed Kunju are decided to be retained in the Data Bank. The decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee referred to in Ext.P15 Gazette Notification would show that the Local Level Monitoring Committee took a decision to exclude the property in question, having an extent of 3.85 Ares from the data bank on 14.11.2018. Similarly, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided to remove the property having an extent of 6.25 Ares in Survey No.11/2-1, which WA NO. 197 OF 2026 37 2026:KER:27183 belongs to Muhamed Kunju as per the decision in the meeting dated 03.07.2019. Therefore, it can be concluded that as on the date of Ext.P2 order of the District Collector directing the 5 th respondent to remove the quarry waste dumped in the property, it was not included in the Data Bank. In such circumstances, the land in question can be treated only as an unnotified land in respect of which the power under Section 27(A) of the Paddy Land Act can be exercised by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext.R6(b) report dated 03.06.2020 and Ext.R6(c) report dated 13.07.2020 of the Village Officer also shows that the land having an extent of 3.85 Ares in the ownership of the 5th respondent, in which the petroleum outlet is proposed to be established by the 6th respondent is a land lawfully removed from the Data Bank and the nature of the said property is not paddy land or wet land.

25. While coming to the issuance of Ext.P8 order granting NOC to the 6th respondent is concerned, with the risk of repetition, we may note that the said order was issued after complying with all the legal formalities and obtaining comments from other stakeholders mentioned in the Rule. Though the appellant contends that there are water bodies like canals situated abutting WA NO. 197 OF 2026 38 2026:KER:27183 or within the prohibited distance of the land in question, there are no records to prove the same, except the report of the commissioner that he saw some water stagnation in the nearby property. But that alone is not sufficient to hold that a water body is situated near the property in question. The learned Single Judge also considered the same in the impugned judgment and found against the appellant, stating that there is nothing in the revenue records to find that there are water bodies in the prohibited distance from the proposed site.

26. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant cannot substantiate his contention that the property in question is illegally converted by the 5th respondent and Ext.P8 NOC was issued by the 2nd respondent in violation of the provisions under the Paddy Land Act or any of the guidelines for establishing a petroleum outlet. In such circumstances, merely by contending that the land was a paddy land and it was illegally converted into dry land, the appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant could not establish his locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Likewise, on merits also, he could not WA NO. 197 OF 2026 39 2026:KER:27183 establish his pleadings in the writ petition to grant the reliefs sought therein.

27. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which warrants interference by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

                                 MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
   WA NO. 197 OF 2026                 40              2026:KER:27183


                  APPENDIX OF WA NO. 197 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A             PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURAL STREAM/WATER
                       BODY
ANNEXURE B             PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OF
                       PETROLEUM RETAIL OUTLET WITH DATE AND TIME
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R6(A)         THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE OF PURCHASE OF

FUEL FOR COMMISSIONING THE PETROLEUM OUTLET DATED 31/12/25 ANNEXURE R6(B) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS ANNEXURE R6(C) COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 4/6/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE -C TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED - 13-9- 2024 ANNEXURE -D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED - 18-9-2024

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court