The court, in its judgment in Fathima Holithithige vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep, held that individuals – termed as cowledars in records – who were in possession of pandaram land when the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965, came into force are landowners under the Regulation.

They do not first need an occupancy order under Section 83 to establish that status, it held.

The court also held that the administration cannot take such land merely by treating it as government property. If the administration wants to acquire the land, it must do so through lawful means and pay compensation.

But why did land held by islanders for generations come to be treated as government land in the first place?

Why land matters in Lakshadweep

Lakshadweep is India’s smallest Union Territory. It has 36 islands spread over about 32 sq km, of which 10 are inhabited. In the 2011 Census, the population of the island was recorded at 64,473.

With limited land available for homes, coconut cultivation, public infrastructure and development, ownership of even relatively small parcels can have major consequences. Tourism has also added to the demand for land.

The dispute before the High Court centred on one particular category, pandaram land (government-owned property), and the rights of people who had held such land under the older ‘cowle’ system.

What is pandaram land? Who is a cowledar?

The 1965 regulation created a statutory framework for land revenue, tenancy and the rights and liabilities of landholders in Lakshadweep. It defines a cowledar as “a person who has been or is granted a lease of pandaram land for a specified period, subject to conditions including making improvements to it”.

The same regulation defines a landowner to include a “person shown in government records as holding pandaram land as a cowledar”.

The High Court, in its judgement, traced historical cowle arrangements across islands including Androth, Kalpeni, Kavaratti and Agatti, and it further distinguished cowledars who were already in possession before the 1965 regulation from people who were allotted pandaram land later.

What did the 1965 law say?

The law in question has two specific sections that contradict each other.

Section 2(n) included a person shown in government records as holding pandaram land as a cowledar within the definition of “land-owner”.

Section 83, meanwhile, provided for the conferment of occupancy rights on three categories of people. These included a person who was occupying pandaram land as a cowledar immediately before the regulation came into force, another person occupying pandaram land at that time, and a person subsequently allotted pandaram land under Section 14.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute largely centred on the confusion as to whether a cowledar was already described as a landowner under Section 2(n), and whether that person still required a separate occupancy order stated in Section 83.

The administration argued that such an order was required. The petitioners argued that it was not.

The High Court accepted the latter position for cowledars who were in possession when the 1965 regulation commenced.

“I find considerable force in the contentions raised by the petitioners,” Justice T R Ravi said in the judgment.

What changed in 2020?

The land dispute did not end with the question of rights of original cowledars. It also involved people who had later acquired pandaram land, including Scheduled Tribe islanders who had received land through transfers from original allottees or cowledars.

To address this, the government introduced an amendment to the 1965 Regulation in 2020, inserting Section 15A. The provision dealt with certain sales or gifts of pandaram land made on or before December 31, 2019, between original allottees or their successors, or cowledars or their successors, and Scheduled Tribe islanders.

Such transfers were deemed valid under the Regulation. The Scheduled Tribe islander in possession of the land was also treated as an allottee and made eligible for occupancy rights under Section 83.

The provision was linked to a longstanding problem over pending occupancy rights. A Ministry of Home Affairs note placed before the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes in 2019 said applications for occupancy rights had remained pending for years and that Scheduled Tribe occupants of pandaram land were being deprived of their statutory rights.

But this protection did not remain in the law for long.

Why was Section 15A removed?

In 2023, the government amended the 1965 Regulation again and deleted Section 15A. The amendment did not state a specific reason for removing the provision, as mentioned in the High Court judgment.

This became a separate issue in the case. The petitioners argued that the 2020 amendment had been preceded by consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, as required under Article 338A(9) for major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes. The 2023 amendment, however, was brought without a similar consultation.

The High Court accepted this argument and held that the 2023 amendment was unconstitutional. It also criticised the withdrawal of the 2020 protection without further consultation, particularly since the earlier amendment had followed a consultative process with the Scheduled Tribes Commission.

How did the land dispute escalate in 2024?

The dispute moved from a question of legal status to a more immediate fight over possession in June 2024.

On June 27, 2024, the District Collector, Lakshadweep, issued an order directing Deputy Collectors to take possession of pandaram lands across the islands, subject to certain conditions. The order proposed taking over the lands while paying compensation for the improvements made on them, rather than treating the land itself as belonging to the cowledars.

The order immediately became part of the court battle. On June 28, 2024, the Kerala High Court was told that the District Collector had issued the June 27 order even though interim orders were already in force in several pending cases. The administration told the court that the new order would not be implemented against the petitioners in those cases, and the court extended the interim protection.

The administration subsequently also ordered the evaluation of structures and trees on land held by cowledars. Notices were issued for their valuation, including ex-parte evaluation. The petitioners argued that this process was a step towards dispossessing them from their land.

The High Court’s answer in 2026 was no. It held that the Collector had no power under the 1965 Regulation to resume land held by qualifying cowledars and that orders seeking to take possession by paying for improvements were “without authority of law”.

What has the High Court ruled?

The August 5 judgment makes four important findings.

First, cowledars who owned pandaram land when the 1965 regulation came into force fall within the statutory definition of landowners. They do not require a separate Section 83 occupancy order to establish that status.

Second, the District Collector cannot use the 1965 regulation to resume such land. The court held that the orders issued for resumption were without lawful authority and quashed them.

Third, the court declared the 2023 amendment unconstitutional and restored the legal position concerning Section 15A.

Fourth, the court directed the Administrator to confer occupancy rights on cowledars who were in possession when the 1965 regulation commenced, along with their legal heirs and assigns, within six months. Other eligible persons under Section 83 and Rule 116 of the 1968 Rules are to be dealt with within eight months.

Does this mean all pandaram land is now private property?

No. The judgment is specific about the categories of people whose rights are protected. The key question is whether a person was a cowledar in possession when the 1965 regulation commenced, or falls within another category covered by Section 83.

The court’s ruling does not simply transfer every piece of land classified as pandaram land to islanders. It establishes that land held by qualifying cowledars, their legal heirs or assigns cannot be treated as government land merely because a formal occupancy order was never issued.

That distinction is important because the regulation itself covers different categories of occupants and landholders.

Can the government still acquire the land?

The judgment does not take away the government’s power to acquire land for a public purpose, but changes the legal basis on which such action can be taken.

The court held that land belonging to cowledars, their legal heirs or assigns cannot be treated as government land. They cannot be deprived of it without authority of law. The administration can decide whether it wants to acquire the land, but it must do so through the applicable legal process and provide compensation.

The administration cannot treat the underlying land as its own and limit compensation to improvements made on it.

Is Lakshadweep’s land dispute over?

Not entirely. The August 5 judgment settled an important question about the status of qualifying cowledars and the administration’s power to resume their land, but land ownership is only one part of the wider issue.

The Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning and Development Regulation, 2026, came into force on July 29, 2026, as per a notification issued by the UT administration.

That leaves three separate questions for Lakshadweep: who owns the land, how the government can acquire it, and how privately held land can be used or developed.

The High Court judgment has dealt with the first two in the context of the pandaram land dispute as of now.