On paddy field conservation in Keralam

A conservation law meant to protect Keralam’s paddy fields is gradually becoming an instrument facilitating its decline. The State had 8.82 lakh hectares (ha) of paddy fields during 1974-75, which reduced 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. Despite the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (KCPWA) in 2008, the decline continues.

Also read | An Act at a crossroads 

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 shift is astounding, as the State rightfully recognised the ecological value of paddy fields within KCPWA.

A case of legal dilution

The structural and procedural modifications to KCPWA demonstrate how even a strong conservation law can be diluted. The Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2015, amended the KCPWA by adding Section 3A, which regularised unauthorised paddy field conversions prior to 2008 upon the payment of a nominal fee. This contravened the Local Self-Government Department (LSGD) circulars of 2008 and 2011, which set 1998 as the cut-off year for implementing the conservation norms, thereby legitimising the reclamations between 1998 and 2008. In 2016, a State notification removed Section 3A without reference to the regularisation cases during the amendment period.

Also read | Kerala Revised Budget: Land Reforms 2.0 proposal opens up new political battle lines

Although the KCPWA mandates the development of a verifiable databank of paddy fields, the process remains incomplete. Consequently, no reliable data source exists to verify the land status in many districts. This blatant administrative failure has become a legal loophole, as the KCPWA (Amendment) 2018 and successive revenue circulars are facilitating the conversion of a larger extent of unnotified land (paddy fields in revenue records but not included in the databank) for residential, commercial, or other purposes.

Building permits on unnotified lands are facilitated by expanding eligibility criteria and expediting category change applications. In 2017, the LSGD withdrew its 2008 and 2011 circulars, which declared 1998 as the cut-off year for regularisation, and its 2012 and 2013 circulars, which restricted land transactions after obtaining housing permits. Despite a High Court order in 2015 for strict legal compliance in building permit issuance, from 2016 onwards, multiple LSGD and revenue circulars facilitated the rapid disposal of applications, with little emphasis on water conservation mandates.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s revenue sector report of 2016 identified the non-detection of illegal paddy field conversions, the non-reporting of unauthorised reclamations, legal non-compliance, and non-reinstatement of illegally converted land as major lapses. The scrutiny turns challenging as the State is fast-tracking conversion applications by deploying additional officials and infrastructure and processing land parcels in clusters.

Until 2002, the Department of Agriculture, with direct agro-ecological stakes in wetland conservation, largely monitored non-agricultural land use. Post-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. Until 2024, the Department earned up to ₹1,606 crore through paddy field regularisation. A strict enforcement of the conservation law remains constrained since the regulator earns consistent revenue from paddy field conversion, causing a structural dilemma.

Over the years, bureaucratic enforcement appears to be facilitating regularisation of paddy fields — recategorisation to non-wetland status, dilution of water-conservation mandates, and widening of conversion eligibility — with limited conservation focus. 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.

Given that the KCPWA is a progressive statute, political and administrative goodwill is needed to achieve its conservation goals. Completion of a verifiable wetland-paddy databank, strict monitoring, and ecologically informed conversion penalties are a few of the immediate steps that can be taken.

Chitra K. P. is Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur. Preetha K.V. is Assistant Professor, PG Department of Social Entrepreneurship, Madras School of Social Work, Chennai