A Kerala farmer’s fight to preserve wetlands stalls billionaire’s mall plan

Although Yusuff Ali did not mention the name of the party, Mukundan came out saying that the Communist Party of India (CPI), of which he is a member, has no role in the case. For him, it has been a lonely fight for the conservation of paddy fields.

The crux of the legal battle between the billionaire businessman and the Thrissur-based farmer is over the question of whether the land at Ayyanthole village, where the Lulu Group wants to construct a mall and hypermarket, is designated as a paddy field. Designated paddy fields cannot be used for non-agricultural purposes.

When the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed an order excluding Lulu’s land from the paddy land databank, which would have allowed its use for non-agricultural purposes, Mukundan moved the Kerala High Court in 2023 against the move.

Last week, the High Court cancelled the RDO’s order, and directed authorities to reconsider the status of the land, effectively stalling plans for the mall.

A Lulu spokesperson said, “We are studying the High Court verdict and will take a decision accordingly.”

Mukundan sees the court decision as vindication. “It vindicates my stand that the plot of land is a paddy field. The Agriculture Officer of Ayyanthol had earlier reported that the land identified for the mall is included in the data bank of paddy fields to be conserved.”

He said that the court “rejected Lulu’s argument that the land had been converted long before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, came into force and that it should not be included in the wetland databank”.

Other battles

According to Mukundan, he has been waging a legal battle regarding the status of the land since 2016, when it had a different owner. “The 161 acres of land formed part of a vast paddy field. The previous owner had mined clay from the paddy field and tried to reclaim it. I had been fighting against it since then. After the Lulu Group purchased the land, they wanted to get the land divested of its paddy status, but I fought against heavy odds,” he said.

In 2017, his legal fight against the reclamation of paddy fields and wetlands led to the resignation of NCP leader Thomas Chandy as Kerala’s Transport Minister in the previous Left front government, in which his party, the CPI, is a partner. Chandy, who was then the wealthiest legislator in the Kerala Assembly, had allegedly encroached on government land and reclaimed backwaters in Alappuzha for a high-end tourism project. He ran into problems when Mukundan moved the High Court, seeking the registration of a case against Chandy.

Mukundan owns two acres of paddy and has leased eight acres more for cultivation of rice and vegetables. He says his fight for paddy fields began after the state government enacted the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act in 2008. “I realised it is a strong weapon to fight for the protection of wetlands,” he said. The Act facilitated the creation of a paddy and wetland databank and legislated for the protection of such land from use for non-agricultural purposes.

He maintains that his fight is not against the Lulu Group, and that he has 15 different petitions against the conversion of paddy fields that are pending before the authorities. “My fight is not against Lulu or any particular group. There are several groups and individuals who have indulged in this, and I am fighting against them also,” he said.

He said he would not consider any offers to stand down. “I have no family and live alone at home. Why should I think about amassing money or succumbing to offers?” Mukundan, a resident of Varandarappilly in Thrissur, asked.

A chunk of his income from farming goes to fighting court cases, he said, adding, “My advocates know that my fight is genuine, and they are ready to support my causes.”

His legal fight has forced the state government to maintain the Agriculture Promotion Fund to protect and restore paddy fields. From 2008 to 2024, the state has collected Rs 1,510 crore as fees for converting paddy/wetlands. “The state had not deposited the amount with the Agriculture Promotion Fund, and instead, diverted the same into the Treasury for other purposes. Only Rs 6 lakh has been used for the restoration of paddy fields,” he said.

In November last year, the Division Bench of the High Court ordered the government to transfer the Rs 1,510 crore to the Agriculture Promotion Fund in four instalments.

“My fight is for paddy fields, and I am least bothered about who is the owner trying to reclaim it,” he said.