Ramachandran . N vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10554 Ker

WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023
                                   1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
     MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

          RAMACHANDRAN . N
          AGED 64 YEARS
          S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., AZHIYUR,
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673308
          BY ADVS.
          T.G.RAJENDRAN
          T.R.TARIN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
          695001
    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          DISTRICT COLLECTORATE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
          ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
    3     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL
          STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
OTHER PRESENT:

          SR.GP.N.DEEPA


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023
                                       2

                    BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
              ========================
                     W.P.(C)No.28029 of 2023
              ------------------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 16th day of October 2023

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2.944 Ares of property

comprised in Survey No.246/13, 2.854 Ares of land in Survey

No.246/12 and 9.906 Ares of land in Survey No.247/44 totalling an

extent of 14.8544 of Vadakara Village, Vadakara Taluk, Kozhikode

District. However, in the Basic Tax Register, the land is classified as

'Nilam'. The aforesaid property has not been included in the data

bank. The property is thus an unnotified land. Petitioner applied in

Form 6 under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act') to change the nature of

unnotified land. By a communication dated 25.07.2023, the 3 rd

respondent directed the petitioner to pay a conversion fee under

Section 27A(3)of the Act.

2. Sri.Rajendran, T.G, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

contended that no conversion fee is payable for an extent of land

less than 25 cents and therefore, the demand is without any basis.

3. Smt.N.Deepa, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on

the other hand, submitted that the prior title deeds as well as that of

the petitioner's title deed are required to be verified, and if the WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023

extent is above 25 cents, the conversion fee is liable to be paid.

4. In the decision in Sumesh U. v. Revenue Divisional

Officer Palakkad [2023 (3) KHC 431], this Court has already

observed that a conversion fee is not payable for an extent of land

less than 25 cents under Section 27A of the Act. Further, in the

decision in Baby v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316], the

Circular No.169/2022 was held to be unconstitutional. Thus, based

on the legal principles laid down in the above decisions, an applicant

under Section 27A of the Act is not liable to pay any conversion fee

to the extent of 25 cents. Similarly, in the decision in State of

Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [2023 (5) KHC 337], it was held

that if property is in excess of 25 cents, the conversion fee needs to

be paid only in respect of property in excess of 25 cents.

5. In the circumstances, petitioner's title deed, including those

of his predecessor-in-title, is to be verified to assess whether any of

them possessed an extent of land above 25 cents as on 30-12-2017.

If, on such verification, the extent is less than 25 cents, then no fee

shall be payable. Ext.P3 notice has been issued without bearing in

mind the above legal principles and hence it is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the 3rd

respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the

petitioner's application under Form 6 of the Rules, bearing in mind

the principles laid down in the decision in Baby's case (supra) and WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023

Sumesh's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ WP(C) NO. 28029 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28029/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.8.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 6 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.

23400/2022 DATED 6.2.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 983/2023 DATED 1.8.2023