Kerala High Court
Babu M. Mathai vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25508 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
BABU M. MATHAI, AGED 49, S/O. MATHAI,
MADAPPILLIL HOUSE, AMBUNADU KARA,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
MALAYIDAMTHURUTH P.O., 683 561.
BY ADV V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
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 - 683 562.
GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.25508/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2021
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order to the extent
the 2nd respondent declined to adopt the fair value of the
property of the petitioner in working out the fee to be paid
under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In the alternative, the
petitioner seeks to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider and
dispose of Ext.P3 objection taking into consideration of the
settled legal provisions.
2. The petitioner is owner of 8.50 Ares of property
in R.Sy.No.22/2 of block No.25 of Kizhakkambalam Village,
Kunnathunade Taluk. The property is recorded as paddy
land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submitted an
application in Form-6 seeking to change the nature of the
WP(C)No.25508/2020
land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records.
The application was made on 26.03.2019, invoking the
provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008.
3. The application has been allowed as per Ext.P1,
but with a direction to pay fee payable under Section
27A(3) of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Act, fixing the fair value @`1,17,000/- per Are with 100%
increase. Increased fair value would now stand to
`2,34,000/-.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
Department of Registration has already published fair value
of the land in respect of the petitioner and the fair value per
Are is only `22,000/-. In Ext.P1, the fair value has been
increased presumably taking into consideration the fair
value of other lands in the nearby areas.
WP(C)No.25508/2020
5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out
that the land is now found as a residential plot with a private
road access. It is because of the change in the nature of
the plot that the fair value had to be increased in
consonance with the factual situation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents.
7. This Court in the judgment reported in Ajith
Kumar Shenoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2020 (5)
KLT 683] had occasioned to consider fixation of fee based
on fair value. In the said judgment, this Court held that the
fee prescribed as per Section 27A(3) r/w Rule 12(9) of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules can
only be the fair value of the subject property covered by the
application filed under Section 27A(1) and it cannot be the
notified fair value in respect of any other property.
WP(C)No.25508/2020
8. In view of the law laid down by this Court in 2020
(5) KLT 683, this Court is of the considered view that the
Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider Ext.P1 to the
extent it fix fair value and the fee, in the light of the
judgment of this Court. Furthermore, it has to be noted that
by Ext.P5 Circular dated 20.02.2021 wherein the
Government has also taken view that the fair value under
Section 27A is to be fixed based on the fair value as existed
on the date of making application under Section 27A. This
Court has also upheld the view taken in the said Circular.
The decision shall be passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a
period of two months.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/09.09.2021
WP(C)No.25508/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25508/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
BEARING NO A 13-5725/2019 DATED
27.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
FAIR VALUE REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON
03.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPYO F GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
25.02.2021 BEARING NO.G.O.
(ORDINARY)NO.1166/2021/REV.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.REV-
P1/219/2020-REV DATED 20.02.2021.
