Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Varghese John on 30 October, 2024
2024:KER:82231
W.A.No.1636/2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1636 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.5193 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 IN W.P(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689101
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR
RDO OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689101
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA, KRISHIBHAVAN, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689102
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
THIRUVALLA, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
REVENUE TOWER, THIRUVALLA - 689101
6 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
THIRUVALLA, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
REVENUE TOWER, THIRUVALLA., PIN - 689101
2024:KER:82231
W.A.No.1636/2024
2
7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PIN - 689645
SRI M.H HANIL KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):
VARGHESE JOHN,
AGED 69 YEARS
KOZHIYADIYILAAYA MEPRATHU HOUSE, THUKALASSERRY,
THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689101
BY ADVS.
VARUGHESE M EASO
VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82231
W.A.No.1636/2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2024
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Mr. M.H.Hanilkumar, learned Special Government
Pleader and Mr.Vivek Varghese.P.J., learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the order dated
12 October 2023 in W.P(C)No.5193 of 2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner had applied for
conversion under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008, and the conversion fee was quantified as payable
to the entire extent of 22.45 Ares. The Petitioner challenged the
quantification of the conversion fee, not only on the aspect of extent of
land but also on the value, which was taken as the basis for calculating the
fee.
3. As regards the first part regarding the extent of land to be taken
into consideration, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment
relied upon the decisions in the cases in Sumesh U. v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Palakkad [2023(3)KHC 431] and State of Kerala v. Moushmi
Ann Jacob [2023(5)KHC 337]. Secondly, the learned Single Judge
found that the basis of arrival for fixing the conversion fee at the quantum
of the fair value was not proper and it should have been on the basis of the
fair value of the Petitioner's own property.
2024:KER:82231
4. In the appeal filed by the State, it is categorically stated that the
impugned judgment is challenged to the extent it holds that the Writ
Petitioner/Respondent is only liable to pay conversion fees for the extent
above 25 cents of land and the view taken by the learned Single Judge of
this Court is the subject matter of challenge in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP(C)No.25736 of 2023, and the operation and
implementation of the order holding this view has been stayed. The
learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the Respondent is not
pressing this ground and the entire land can be considered for calculating
the conversion fee. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted
that as regard the basis for calculating the conversion fee, which is the
other finding rendered by the learned Single Judge, there is no appeal by
the State.
5. The appeal specifically states that the appeal is only with regard
to the extent of land and not the procedure adopted for calculating the
value. Since the learned counsel for the Respondent has made it clear that
the conversion fee can be considered on the basis of entire land, the
limited challenge raised in this appeal would not survive. As stated earlier,
the other part is specifically not challenged.
2024:KER:82231
6. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
S. Manu
Judge
vgd/30/10
2024:KER:82231
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN
SLP(C) NO. 25736/23 FILED AGAINST
JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.983/23.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(A) True copy of the judgment dated
08/07/2021 in WP(c) No 16800/2020
Georgekutty Thomas and Another Vs RDO,
Kottayam
Annexure R1(B) True copy of the Judgment dated
10/07/2023 in Contempt of Court Case (C)
NO. 272 0F 2023 IN WP(C).NO.16800/2020
Annexure R1(C) True copy of the application dated
15/10/2024 submitted by the respondent
before the 3rd Appellant herein along
with the acknowledgment receipt dated
15/10/2024
