Village Officer cannot issue stop memo for dry land (purayidom) under Section 12 of Paddy Land Act

The Kerala High Court recently observed that village officers lack jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act) to issue stop memos for properties classified as ‘purayidom’ (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). .Justice Viju Abraham held that the powers of the village officer are limited to land classified as paddy or wetland and not properties classified as purayidom’ in the BTR which are are beyond the jurisdiction of village officers under Section 12 of the Act. "Section 12 of the Act, 2008 empowers the Village Officer to direct any person to stop any action which is in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11 of the Act, 2008. Section 3 is regarding prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land and Section 11 deals with prohibition or reclamation of wetland. Therefore, Section 12 empowers the Village Officer to issue stop memo only if there is any activity undertaken in illegal conversion of paddy land or wet land," the Court made it clear.Thus, the actions of the village officer in the present case, evidenced by the stop memo, exceeded the powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act, which were meant to be exercised only to properties that fell within the ambit of paddy land or wetland."In view of the fact that the property is a 'purayidom', I am of the view that the respondent Village Officer has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue a stop memo," the Court said..The judgment was passed on two petitions wherein the Court was addressing disputes arising from a stop memo issued by a Village Officer to stop land levelling activities on a property classified as 'purayidom' also known as dry land in the BTR.The petitioner in the first petition, the property owner, challenged the stop memo, while the petitioner in the second petition, a neighbouring property owner, sought restoration of the land, claiming it was wetland and had been illegally converted.The property was recorded as ‘Nilam’ (paddy land) in an old settlement register but the BTR classified it as 'purayidom'.The village officer issued the stop memo, citing water-logging and a law-and-order situation, despite the petitioner having obtained an interim injunction from the Munsiff Court against interference with the property..The High Court observed that Section 12 of the Act empowers village officers to stop activities contravening Sections 3 and 11 of the 2008 Act, which prohibit the conversion or reclamation of paddy land or wetland alone.Since the property was indisputably classified as 'purayidom' in the BTR, the Court held that the village officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the stop memo and highlighted that the entries in the BTR could not be overridden by older records like the settlement register, which described the property differently.The Court further rejected the argument that water-logging alone could justify treating the property as paddy land or wetland under the Act.In this regard, the Court referred to its earlier ruling and stated that mere water-logging was insufficient to classify land as paddy land or wetland or include it in the official data bank.The Court observed that law and order concerns cited by the Village Officer as a reason for issuing the stop memo, were irrelevant grounds under Section 12 of the Act..The petitions were disposed of with directions to adhere to the statutory framework, ensuring that actions under the Act aligned with its specific provisions and do not overstep jurisdictional limits..Advocates KN Rajani, Sajen Thampan, Tom Mathew, Deepu Anil, Fidil V John appeared for the petitioner who challenged the stop memo. Advocates Sreedevi Kylasanath, Achut Kylas, R Mahesh Menon and Deago John K represented the petitioner who sought restoration of the land as wetland. Government Pleader Riyal Devassy appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]