The Kerala High Court has set aside land conversion orders passed in favour of Lulu Hypermarket Pvt. Ltd. and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to conduct a fresh review in strict compliance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Justice Viju Abraham, delivering judgment on 27 August 2025, observed that mandatory procedures were bypassed while excluding large tracts of land in Ayyanthole village, Thrissur, from the paddy land data bank.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from two writ petitions: one filed by Lulu Hypermarket (W.P.(C) 38444/2022), and the other by local resident T.N. Mukundan (W.P.(C) 1045/2023), who challenged the exclusion of Survey Nos. 403, 405, and 406 from the notified data bank.
Lulu contended that its land had been converted long before the 2008 Act came into force, and that permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order were already in place. However, Mukundan alleged illegal reclamation of paddy land, clay mining, and manipulation of satellite reports to justify conversion.
Justice Abraham noted that Rule 4(4e) of the 2008 Rules requires the RDO to obtain a report from the Agricultural Officer before acting on a Form-5 application to remove land from the data bank.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Warns Lawyer Over Indecent Language, Seeks Report on Injured Victim
"A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that no such report was called for, and the decisions were based solely on satellite reports of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC)," the court remarked.
The judge also took note of contradictory findings in different KSRSEC reports for the same period, which raised doubts about their reliability. Supporting documents, including Google Earth imagery, mahazars by the Village Officer, and agricultural records showing paddy cultivation in 2019–2020, strengthened the contention that the land remained paddy fields.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Sonu Yadav in NDPS Case, Cites Procedural Lapses
Directions Issued
The High Court quashed the contested orders (Exts. P11, P12, and P13) and remitted the matter back to the RDO with specific directions:
- A fresh report must be obtained from the Agricultural Officer as required under Rule 4.
- The KSRSEC should prepare a new satellite report under the direct supervision of its Director.
- The RDO must pass a reasoned order within four months after hearing both Lulu Hypermarket and the petitioner.
- Proceedings under Section 13 of the 2008 Act for restoration of illegally converted land will remain in abeyance until the fresh decision.
- Any conversion fee already paid by Lulu is to be refunded if the orders are ultimately set aside.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL Over Claims of Missing Second Volume of Gandhi’s Autobiography
By insisting on strict adherence to statutory safeguards, the High Court reinforced the principle that paddy lands cannot be excluded from protection through procedural shortcuts. The ruling is expected to serve as a precedent in Kerala’s ongoing tussle between commercial development and conservation of agricultural land.
Case Title: Lulu Hypermarket Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Collector, and connecter matter
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) No. 38444 of 2022
