Paddy Field Conservation in Keralam: KCPWA 2008

The Lift Line

“A conservation law meant to protect Keralam’s paddy fields is gradually becoming an instrument facilitating its decline.” (Chitra K. P. and Preetha K.V., The Hindu)

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

In the news: In an op-ed in The Hindu of 21 October 2026, “On paddy field conservation in Keralam”, Chitra K. P., Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur, and Preetha K.V., Assistant Professor, PG Department of Social Entrepreneurship, Madras School of Social Work, Chennai, argue that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (KCPWA) is being diluted, not by weak enforcement but by “bureaucratic redesign”: amendments and circulars that regularise and ease conversion, an incomplete data bank, and a Revenue Department that both regulates conversion and earns from it.

Read it with our August note on Kerala’s floods as a land-use failure, which takes up the same Act from the side of flood absorption.

GS Paper 3: conservation and environmental degradation; major crops and cropping patterns; land use; food security. GS Paper 2: government policies and interventions; the design and implementation of State laws. Essay: development and ecology.

UPSC Relevance. Prelims: the KCPWA (Act 28 of 2008); the Data Bank under Section 5(4)(i) and the Local Level Monitoring Committee; Section 3A (2015) and Section 27A (2018); the Agricultural Promotion Fund under Section 27D; the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967; Kerala’s rice seasons and rice zones. Mains: conversion of wetlands, paddy fields as a socio-ecological system, conflict of interest in regulation, gaps in land records, and whether fee revenue reaches restoration.

Background and Context

What the 2008 Act does

The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (28 of 2008) is, in the words of the Kerala High Court, “an Act to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system, in the State of Kerala”. Its main tools:

• The Data Bank. A Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland is constituted under Section 5(4)(i). When an owner applies in Form 5 to have land removed from it, the Revenue Divisional Officer seeks a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
• The cut-off. The Kerala High Court has held that it is “only the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters” for including or excluding land from the Data Bank (Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2021, followed in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 11 August 2023).
• Restoration. Under Section 13, the District Collector is empowered to restore the original position of paddy land and remove clay, sand and earth.

The amendments, step by step

What “unnotified land” means. The 2018 amendment Bill (Bill No. 149) defines it as land recorded as paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register kept in Village Offices but not notified as paddy land or wetland under Section 5(4). Under Section 27A, as the High Court reproduces it:

• the owner applies to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who decides after considering the reports of the Village Officer, “ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands”;
• where the parcel allowed is more than 20.2 ares, ten per cent of it is set apart for water conservancy measures;
• the applicant pays a fee “at such rate as may be prescribed”, but no fee is collected for land filled up before 4 July 1967, “the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967”;
• in specifying water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies.

The numbers, read carefully

Both series measure the area under the crop, not the extent of paddy land on record. The fall of about four-fifths, from 8.82 lakh ha to 1.76 lakh ha, therefore includes land moved to other crops as well as land converted to other uses. Kerala grows rice in three seasons, Virippu (autumn), Mundakan (winter) and Puncha (summer). The Department of Agriculture Development and Farmers’ Welfare runs a Rice Development scheme with special emphasis on Kuttanad, Onattukara, Pokkali, Kole, Palakkad, Wayanad and Kaipad; its programmes include area expansion, assistance for fallow land cultivation and royalty to paddy land owners.

The Issue, Decoded

The Analysis

1. The decline. The authors open with the fall from 8.82 lakh ha in 1974-75 to 1.76 lakh ha in 2024-25, “a drop of 80%, owing to crop shifts, housing and commercial growth, developmental needs, and a speculative land market”. The decline continued, they note, after the KCPWA was enacted in 2008. The first figure is the State Planning Board’s area under paddy (Economic Review 2016) and the second its area under rice (wetland) (Economic Review 2025): both measure the crop, not the land on record.

2. Redesign, not weak enforcement. Their thesis: “Rather than ineffective enforcement, what is unfolding is an implausible dilution of conservation logic through ongoing bureaucratic redesign, effected by multiple circulars and orders.” The steps they trace:

• Section 3A (2015). Added by the Kerala Finance (No. 2) Act, 2015, it regularised conversions made before 2008 “upon the payment of a nominal fee”. The 2016 Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons puts that fee at 25 per cent of the fair value of the land.
• The 1998 cut-off. The authors say Section 3A contradicted Local Self-Government Department (LSGD) circulars of 2008 and 2011 that had set 1998 as the cut-off year, and so legitimised reclamations between 1998 and 2008.
• The 2016 reversal. They write that “a State notification removed Section 3A” in 2016. The government’s Bill No. 28 of 2016 provided that “section 3A shall be omitted”, as announced in the revised Budget speech of 8 July 2016, with a saving clause for anything already done under the Act.
• Circulars after 2016. In 2017, they say, the LSGD withdrew its 2008 and 2011 circulars and its 2012 and 2013 circulars, and from 2016 “multiple LSGD and revenue circulars facilitated the rapid disposal of applications”, in spite of what they describe as a 2015 High Court order for strict compliance in issuing building permits.

3. The data bank gap. The Act requires a verifiable databank, but “the process remains incomplete”, the authors write, so many districts have no reliable source to verify the status of land. That gap “has become a legal loophole”: the 2018 amendment and later revenue circulars are “facilitating the conversion of a larger extent of unnotified land”. The logic follows from the definitions. Land recorded as paddy land in the basic tax register but missing from the Data Bank is unnotified, and unnotified land can change its nature under Section 27A for a fee. The authors also cite a 2016 revenue sector report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which, in their account, found non-detection of illegal conversions, non-reporting of unauthorised reclamations, legal non-compliance and non-reinstatement of illegally converted land. Scrutiny is harder, they add, as the State fast-tracks applications “by deploying additional officials and infrastructure and processing land parcels in clusters”.

4. A regulator that earns. Their sharpest point is institutional. They say that until 2002 the Department of Agriculture “largely monitored non-agricultural land use”, and that after the KCPWA the Department of Revenue became the primary monitoring authority. “The Department’s dual role as both a conservation regulator and a revenue generator from regularisation confers immense power over land-use decision-making.” Because the regulator “earns consistent revenue from paddy field conversion”, strict enforcement runs into “a structural dilemma”: a conflict of interest built into the design.

The court record bears the point out. In T.N. Mukundan v. State of Kerala, decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 28 November 2024, the State’s figure was that regularisation charges collected since the Act was amended in 2018 came to “more than 1510 crores” as of 18 October 2024, all of it, the court recorded, “directly credited to the consolidated fund of the State Government”. Reading the Land Revenue Commissioner’s affidavit, the Bench found “that only 6 lakhs out of the 1510 crores have been allocated for the restoration of paddy lands, which is a primary objective of the Act.” It directed that:

• all amounts collected under Section 27A(3) from 1 December 2024 be credited directly to the Agricultural Promotion Fund under Section 27D, to be used under Rule 14 of the 2008 Rules;
• the State fix and publish a minimum allocation under each head of Rule 14 within two months;
• 25 per cent of the amount in the Land Revenue Commissioner’s affidavit of 2 November 2024 be moved to the Fund within four months, and the rest within twelve months in instalments of 25 per cent every four months;
• the Fund be audited every year by the State Audit Department, with the result published on the department’s website.

5. What is lost. “Neglecting paddy fields as a socio-ecological system that regulates local biodiversity, the hydrological cycle, and microclimate constitutes a grave failure, amid rising food insecurity and floods.” The flood angle is the subject of our August note on Kerala’s floods as a land-use failure.

6. Their remedies. The KCPWA is “a progressive statute”, the authors write, so political and administrative goodwill is needed to reach its goals. Their immediate steps: “Completion of a verifiable wetland-paddy databank, strict monitoring, and ecologically informed conversion penalties”.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The law:

• Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008: Act 28 of 2008; restricts conversion or reclamation of paddy land and wetland.
• Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland: under Section 5(4)(i); the Agricultural Officer convenes the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
• Data Bank test: the character and fitness of the land as on 12 August 2008 (Kerala High Court).
• Section 13: the District Collector may restore the original position of paddy land.
• Section 3A: inserted by the Kerala Finance (No. 2) Act, 2015; regularised pre-2008 conversions for 25 per cent of fair value.
• Bill No. 28 of 2016 provided that “section 3A shall be omitted”.
• Section 27A: change of nature of unnotified land; inserted by Act 29 of 2018 with effect from 30 December 2017.
• Section 27A applications go to the Revenue Divisional Officer; parcels above 20.2 ares set apart ten per cent for water conservancy.
• No Section 27A fee for land filled before 4 July 1967, commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.
• Agricultural Promotion Fund: constituted under Section 27D.

The numbers:

• Area under paddy, 1974-75: 8.82 lakh ha (Economic Review 2016).
• Area under rice (wetland), 2024-25: 1.76 lakh ha (Economic Review 2025).
• Rice: 7.01 per cent of the total cropped area in 2024-25.
• Regularisation charges since the 2018 amendment: more than Rs 1,510 crore as of 18 October 2024 (State, before the High Court).
• Allocated for restoring paddy land out of that: only Rs 6 lakh (High Court, 28 November 2024).

Rice in Kerala:

• Seasons: Virippu (autumn), Mundakan (winter), Puncha (summer).
• Rice Development scheme zones: Kuttanad, Onattukara, Pokkali, Kole, Palakkad, Wayanad, Kaipad.
• The scheme includes royalty to paddy land owners and assistance for fallow land cultivation.

Watch the trap: Section 3A (2015) regularised conversions made before the 2008 Act; Section 27A (2018) governs a change of nature of unnotified land. 1.76 lakh ha is a crop area for 2024-25, not a count of paddy land on record. The State said the charges were credited to the Consolidated Fund; the court ordered direct credit to the Agricultural Promotion Fund from 1 December 2024.

The Debate

The authors’ case. Kerala wrote a strong law in 2008 and then, through amendments and circulars, opened routes around it: regularisation of past conversions, a fee-based route for unnotified land, and an incomplete Data Bank that keeps that category wide. The agency that decides conversions also earns from them, so conservation loses.

The other side.

• What the numbers measure. The 80 per cent figure compares crop areas, and the area under a crop falls when farmers move to other crops, a cause the authors list themselves, as well as when land is filled. Most of the fall came early: from 8.82 lakh ha in 1974-75 to 1.96 lakh ha by 2015-16, before the 2018 amendment. In the last ten years the peak was 2.02 lakh ha, in 2020-21.
• Safeguards on paper. Section 27A requires the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure no disruption to the free flow of water to neighbouring paddy lands, sets apart ten per cent of parcels above 20.2 ares for water conservancy, and allows reference to satellite maps. The question is whether these are enforced, which a law alone cannot show.
• Real needs. Housing, commercial growth and development needs, which the authors name as causes, are real. A lawful, fee-based route gives owners of land left out of the Data Bank a defined procedure, which can be better than unrecorded filling.
• The money, not the fee. The failure the High Court found lies in how the charges were used, not in charging them. Its directions of 28 November 2024 aim at that.

The balanced verdict. The authors are right that a regulator that earns from exceptions has a conflict of interest, and the court’s finding (Rs 6 lakh for restoration out of more than Rs 1,510 crore) shows the money has not been working for conservation. The fix is less to forbid every conversion than to complete the record, ring-fence the fees for restoration, publish the audit the court ordered, and price conversion by its ecological cost.

How to Think About This

Ask three questions of any land-use law. First, what does the number measure? A crop area, a land record and a satellite count give different answers; say which one you are citing. Second, who decides and who gains? If the authority that approves exceptions also collects the fee, look for a conflict of interest and for checks on it: audits, publication, independent monitoring. Third, where does the money go? A conversion fee is a conservation tool only if it reaches restoration, so follow it from collection to the Consolidated Fund or to a dedicated fund such as the Agricultural Promotion Fund.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Core idea: Kerala’s 2008 law to conserve paddy land is being diluted by redesign (regularisation, a route for unnotified land, an incomplete Data Bank) and by a regulator that earns from conversion.
• Key fact: area under paddy 8.82 lakh ha (1974-75) against area under rice (wetland) 1.76 lakh ha (2024-25); more than Rs 1,510 crore in charges by 18 October 2024, only Rs 6 lakh for restoration (High Court, 28 November 2024).
• Counterpoint: crop-area figures mix crop shifts with conversion, most of the fall came by 2015-16, and Section 27A carries water safeguards and serves real housing needs.
• Mains use: conflict of interest in regulation, paddy fields as a socio-ecological system, gaps in land records, ring-fencing fees for restoration, audit and transparency.

Revision Flowchart

Sources:

• Chitra K. P. and Preetha K.V., “On paddy field conservation in Keralam”, The Hindu, 21 October 2026
• Kerala State Planning Board, Economic Review 2016 (Chapter 2) and Economic Review 2025, Volume 1 (January 2026), Chapter 3
• Kerala High Court (Division Bench), T.N. Mukundan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) Nos. 26592 and 35561 of 2022, judgment of 28 November 2024 (2024:KER:89787)
• Kerala High Court, Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, WP(C) No. 7513 of 2023, 11 August 2023
• The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (Bill No. 28, Fourteenth Kerala Legislative Assembly); the 2018 amendment Bill (Bill No. 149)
• Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land (Regularisation of Unauthorised Reclamation) Rules, 2015, G.O. (P) No. 611/2015/RD of 17 November 2015

Source: Paddy Field Conservation in Keralam: KCPWA 2008 — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis