The Kerala government has approached the High Court with a review petition, challenging a previous judgment that ordered the state to deposit Rs 1,678.66 crore, collected as land regularisation charges, directly into the Agricultural Promotion Fund (APF). The state argues that such a transfer would lead to a duplication of accounts and impose a significant financial strain, as it claims to have already spent a much larger sum on agricultural activities.
Government's Stance on Financial Duplication
In its petition, the government presented a detailed financial account. It stated that between the financial year 2018-19 and October 2025, it had already expended a substantial Rs 5,177.66 crore on various farm-related initiatives. These activities included the promotion of paddy cultivation, support for group farming, de-watering of punja lands, paddy procurement, and sector development in the Kuttanad region.
The expenditure also covered infrastructure works in Kuttanad's paddy fields, restoration of paddy land, and housing projects under the Life Mission. In contrast, the revenue collected specifically for the APF from landowners between December 30, 2017, and March 31, 2025, stood at Rs 1,678.66 crore. The government contends that transferring this identical amount to the APF now would essentially mean accounting for the same funds twice, creating an undue burden on the state exchequer.
Contempt Proceedings and Court's Earlier Order
The review plea comes against the backdrop of ongoing contempt proceedings. Earlier, a division bench led by the Chief Justice had, on November 28, 2024, directed the state to transfer the land regularisation charges to the APF as mandated by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act.
After the state failed to comply with this order for over a year, a contempt petition was filed by T N Mukundan of Thrissur. Acting on this, the court initiated contempt proceedings on December 3, 2025, against the Chief Secretary and four other senior IAS officers for allegedly violating its directives.
Notices were ordered to be issued to Chief Secretary A Jayathilak, Revenue Secretary Arvind Srivastava, then Finance Secretary Keshvendra Kumar, then Agricultural Production Commissioner Tinku Biswal, and then Land Revenue Commissioner Arjun Pandian. This contempt petition remains pending before the court.
Seeking Judicial Reconsideration
Now, precisely one year after the original judgment was pronounced, the state government has filed the review petition seeking a reconsideration of the court's directive. The core of the government's argument rests on the assertion that the spirit of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act—to promote agriculture—has already been fulfilled through its substantial direct spending, making the specific fund transfer an unnecessary procedural step.
The outcome of this review petition will have significant implications for the state's financial management and its adherence to judicial orders concerning agricultural funding. The court's decision is now awaited as it balances legal compliance with the government's claims of prior expenditure.
