Kerala High Court
Jojo J. Vellukunnel vs The Sub Collector on 25 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JOJO J. VELLUKUNNEL,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH GEORGE VELLUKUNNEL, VELLUKUNNEL
HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERAYILKADAVU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
RDO OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-KUMALI ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686002
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
2
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 fee
notice issued by the 1st respondent and direct the
respondents to proceed with Ext.P4 application
submitted by the petitioner in Form 6 under Section
27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (' Act
and Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
8.49 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.21/1 (Old
Sy. No.3/6A) in Block No.78 of Muttambalam Village,
Kottayam Taluk, covered by Exts.P1 sale deed and P2
land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is an
unnotified land. However, the same is erroneously
classified as 'paddy land' in the revenue records. To
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
change the nature of the petitioner's property in the
revenue records, the petitioner had filed Ext.P4
application before the 1st respondent. By Ext.P5 fee
notice, it is discernible that the 1 st respondent has
allowed Ext.P4 application, but has erroneously
directed the petitioner to remit Rs.9,41,371/- towards
conversion fee. Ext.P5 fee notice is illegal and
arbitrary, since the petitioner's property has only an
extent of 20.97 cents (8.49 Ares). It is only when the
extent of the property exceeds 25 cents, the land owner
is liable to pay conversion fee under Section 27A of the
Act. Therefore, Ext.P5 may be quashed.
3. The first respondent has filed a statement
asserting that, the Village Officer has reported that,
although the applied land is less than 25 cents, the
applicant is in possession of more than 25 cents of
unnotified land lying adjacent to the applied property.
Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay conversion fee.
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. It is not in dispute that, as per Ext.P1 title deed
and Ext.P4 application, the applied property only has
an extent of 8.49 Ares. The 1st respondent has also
allowed Ext.P4 application in respect of 8.49 Ares.
However, the 1st respondent has directed the petitioner
to pay conversion fee on the assumption that the
petitioner has other unnotified lands lying adjacent to
the applied property.
6. The question whether the land owner having
properties covered by separate documents purchased
prior to 30.12.2017 is liable to pay conversion fee is no
longer res integra in view of the law laid down by this
Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Dr.
A.V. Sajeev [2023 (4) KLT 331]. This Court has
categorically held that, if the land owner has purchased
properties prior to 30.12.2017, by different documents
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
and the land covered by the different document is less
than 25 cents, the land owner is exempted from paying
the conversion fee as stipulated in the Government
Order dated 25.02.2021.
7. On an appreciation of the facts and materials on
record, particularly that Exts.P1, P6, P7 and P10 sale
deeds, which prove that all the properties purchased by
the petitioner by separate documents are prior to
30.12.2017. Therefore, the demand in Ext.P5 fee
notice directing the petitioner to pay conversion fee is
unsustainable in law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner :-
(I) Ext.P5 notice to the extent of demanding the
petitioner to remit conversion fee is quashed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to change the
nature of the petitioner's property in the revenue
records and issue conversion certificate to the
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
petitioner without insisting for the conversion fee. The
above exercise shall be carried out within one month
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm/25/6/2025
2025:KER:45753
WP(C) NO. 40369 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40369/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1663/2002
DATED 09/07/2002 OF SRO; KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 01/04/2024 ISSUED FROM MUTTAMBALAM
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 10/10/2023 OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ISSUED FROM
MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION
DATED 16/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.661/1999 DATED
03/03/1999 OF SRO, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.662/1999
DATED 03/03/1999 OF SRO, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
DATED 04/02/2023 ISSUED FROM KOTTAYAM
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
DATED 01/09/20023 ISSUED FROM KOTTAYAM
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1496/I/95
DATED 03/05/1995 OF SRO, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF KLU ORDER NO.H-5186
ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOTTAYAM ISSUED BY
THE RDO, KOTTAYAM
