Varghese M. Mathai vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11102 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.25580 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

               VARGHESE M. MATHAI
               AGED 50
               S/O. MATHAI, MADAPPILLIL HOUSE, AMBUNADU KARA,
               KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
               MALAYIDAMTHURUTH P. O. - 683561,
               MOB. 9495961657.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
               SRI.N.RAJESH
               SHRI.GOPAKUMAR P.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
               DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

      3        TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
               KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
               PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

      4        VILLAGE OFFICER
               KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
               KIZHAKKAMBALAM - 683562.


               ADV. RENJITHA.G (GP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25580 OF 2020(V)

                                  2


                  W.P.(C) No.25580 of 2020
            -----------------------------------------------

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds a land measuring 18.32 Ares in

Kizhakkambalam village. The land of the petitioner satisfies

the definition of 'unnotified land' in terms of the provisions

contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and

Wetland Act, 2008. In order to make use of the land for other

purposes, petitioner preferred an application under Section

27A of the Act. On the said application, the petitioner has

been issued Ext.P1 communication by the second respondent

directing him to pay fees in terms of Section 27A(3) of the

Act, reckoning the fair value of the land at Rs.1,17,000/- per

Are. Ext.P1 is under challenge in the writ petition. The case

set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that fees can be

claimed in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules

made thereunder only based on the fair value of the land

owned by the petitioner and that the fair value of the land of

the petitioner at the time when he preferred the application

under Section 27A was only Rs.22,000/- per Are. WP(C).No.25580 OF 2020(V)

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The fact that the fair value of the land

reckoned for the purpose of issuing Ext.P1 communication is

not the fair value of the land of the petitioner is not in dispute.

It is admitted that the fair value of the land reckoned in Ext.P1

is the fair value of one of the adjacent lands. It is seen that

this court has held in Vimal Vincent v. Revenue Division

Officer, 2020 (1) KLT 145 that the fair value of the land to be

reckoned for the purpose of computing the fees payable under

Section 27A(3) of the Act is the fair value of the concerned

land.

4. It appears that the definition of 'fair value' in

the Act has been amended with effect from 01.04.2020 and it

is in terms of the said amendment that Ext.P1 communication

has been issued to the petitioner. In Ajith Kumar Shenoy v.

Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020(5) KLT 683, it was

clarified by this court that the provision to be applied is the

provision prevailing as on the date of the application of the

petitioner. The date of the application of the petitioner is WP(C).No.25580 OF 2020(V)

26.03.2019. The amended provision came into operation only

with effect from 01.04.2020. In other words, fees can be

claimed from the petitioner for the purpose aforesaid only in

accordance with the fair value of the land of the petitioner as

on the date of preferring the application.

In the circumstances, Ext.P1 is set aside and the

competent authority under the Act is directed to recompute

the fee payable by the petitioner, having regard to the fair

value of the land of the petitioner as on the date of the

application. This shall be done within one month.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV WP(C).No.25580 OF 2020(V)

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25580/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A13-5724/2019 DATED 27.10.20.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 3.11.20.