Kerala High Court
Saheeda Kunju Muhammed vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER:
SAHEEDA KUNJU MUHAMMED
AGED 61 YEARS
MATTELIKKUDI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 543
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
SHRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686 669
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VELLURKUNNAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686 669
R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT. G. RANJITA - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
2
W.P.(C) No.26354 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner holds a land measuring 12.95 Ares in
Survey No.864/11-2 of Vellurkunnam Village, of which a
portion measuring 2.33 Ares is shown in the Revenue
Records as 'Nilam'. The same, however, is not included in
the data bank prepared under the Kerala conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The land
therefore falls within the definition of 'un-notified land' in
terms of the provisions of the Act. In order to make use of
the land for other purposes, the petitioner preferred an
application for permission under Section 27A of the Act. On
the said application, having satisfied that the land of the
petitioner would fall within the definition of 'un-notified
land', the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to
pay a sum of Rs.11,18,400/- towards the fees payable by
her under Section 27A(3) of the Act. Ext.P5 is the
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
communication issued in this regard by the first
respondent. Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ
petition is that she is liable to pay only 20% of the fair value
of the land towards the fees under Section 27A(3) of the
Act. It is stated by the petitioner that the fair value of the
land of the petitioner is only Rs.3,75,000/- per Are and the
fees payable by the petitioner under Section 27A(3) of the
Act is therefore only 20% of the said amount and the fees
has been computed and mentioned in Ext.P5
communication, reckoning the fair value of the land at Rs.12
lakhs per Are.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the
statement is that though the fair value of the land of the
petitioner is only Rs.3,75,000/- per Are, as the land of the
petitioner is similar to the adjacent land, the fair value of
which is Rs.12,00,000/- per Are, in the light of Act 8 of
2020, fees has been computed reckoning the fair value of
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
the land at Rs.12,00,000/- per Are.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as also the learned Government Pleader.
5. It is seen that the petitioner has preferred
the application under Section 27A of the Act on 01.08.2019.
In Ajith Kumar Shenoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
2020 (5) KLT 683, this Court held that the fees payable for
the application under Section 27A(3) of the Act is to be
computed in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules
made thereunder prevailing as on the date of the
application. As on the date of the application, the
requirement of the fees was as provided for under Rule
12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules (the Rules). Rule 12(9) of the Rules provides that the
fees payable shall be the fees as specified in the Schedule
to the Rules. The Schedule to the Rules provides that the
fees payable in respect of a land situated within the limits of
the Municipality is 20% of the fair value. The expression
'fair value' was then defined in the Act as the fair value of
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
the land fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act,
1959 or where the fair value of the land has not been fixed,
the fair value of the land fixed for similar and similarly
situated land. As far as the land of the petitioner is
concerned, Ext.P4 communication issued by the Village
Officer indicates that the fair value of the land is fixed as
Rs.3,75,000/- per Are. In other words, the petitioner is liable
to pay fees only at the rate of 20% of Rs.3,75,000/- per Are.
6. True, in terms of Act 8 of 2020, the
definition of 'Fair value' in the Act has been amended
enabling the competent authority to determine the fees
payable under Section 27A(3) of the Act based on the fair
value of the adjacent similar land, if the fair value of the
said land is higher. As indicated, Act 8 of 2020 does not
have any application to the facts of the present case as the
application has been filed by the petitioner under Section
27A of the Act long prior to the coming into force of Act 8 of
2020.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
Ext.P5 communication, to the extent it directs the petitioner
to pay Rs.11,18,400/- by way of fees under Section 27A(3)
of the Act is quashed and the first respondent is directed to
recompute the fees payable by the petitioner as indicated in
paragraph 5 of this judgment and issue appropriate
communication to the petitioner so as to enable her to
obtain permission under Section 27A of the Act. This shall
be done within one month.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV
WP(C).No.26354 OF 2020(T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED
NO.2733/2015 OF MUVATUPUZHA SRO
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 27A
APPLICATION DATED 01.08.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY & FAIR
VALUE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 24.08.2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
08.09.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE EXTRACT
OF THE COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT PLOTS
IN SY NO.864 OF VELURKUNNAM VILLAGE
