Supreme Court Holds That 2018 Amendments To Kerala Paddy And Wetland Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively
The Court upheld the Kerala High Court's ruling that the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, introduced through the 2018 Amendment, cannot be applied retrospectively to land conversion applications filed before December 30, 2017, which must be decided under the unamended law.
Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed challenging the Kerala High Court’s judgment which held that the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act, could not be applied to pending applications for land conversion filed prior to December 30, 2017.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “At best, the new conditions inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30.12.2017. In other words, all those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme.”
Senior Advocate V. Giri appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondents had submitted applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, seeking conversion of paddy land to non-agricultural land. While some applications were allowed, others remained pending when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, was enacted. As per Section 1(2), it was deemed to have come into force on December 30, 2017.
The Amendment introduced a new definition of “change of nature of unnotified land” as “such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means.” The words “or unnotified land” were added after “paddy land” in Section 2(vi), and “unnotified land” was defined to mean lands recorded in the basic tax register but not notified under Section 5(4).
Sections 27A to 27D were also added. Section 27C mandated that upon conversion as per the Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess land tax and update revenue records accordingly. It further stated, “No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3).”
The statutory authorities began rejecting pending applications by applying the amended provisions, prompting the landowners to approach the Kerala High Court. The High Court ruled that applications filed before December 30, 2017, must be considered under the unamended law. The decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court noted that the core issue was whether the amended statutory conditions introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act could be applied to applications for land conversion that were pending prior to December 30, 2017.
The Court referred to the statutory changes introduced by the 2018 amendment, including the insertion of new definitions such as "change of nature of unnotified land" and "unnotified land" in Section 2, and the insertion of new Sections 27A to 27D in the principal Act.
The Bench observed, “Despite the insertion of a separate definition of ‘unnotified land’, the legislature has treated both ‘paddy land’ and ‘unnotified land’ at par for the purpose of their conversion as non-agricultural lands.”
The Court held that the legislative intent was clearly to apply the new conditions prospectively, stating, “We say so for the reason that the Legislature has explicitly introduced the amended provisions from 30.12.2017 only. At best, the new conditions inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30.12.2017. In other words, all those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme.”
The Bench placed reliance on Section 27A(13) of the Amendment Act, which mandates that applications submitted after the commencement of the amended Act would be governed by the new provisions. The Court opined, “This provision, in our considered opinion, clarifies by implication that such applications which were moved before 30.12.2017, will have to be adjudicated as per the unamended Act.”
Clarifying the position, the Court upheld the view taken by the High Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Appeals were dismissed.
Cause Title: The Tahsildar & Anr. v. Renjith George (C) No. 9524 of 2020)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates V. Giri, Jayanth Muth Raj; AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker; Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar
Respondents: Senior Advocates V. Chitambaresh, Romy Chacko; AOR A. Karthik, Atul Shankar Vinod; Advocates Vishnu Pazhanganat Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal, Ujjwal Sharm, Govind Venugopal, Sachin Singh Dalal
