Kerala High Court
Sameer M vs Tinku Biswal on 3 March, 2025
Con.Case(C) No.857/2024 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Monday, the 3rd day of March 2025 / 12th Phalguna, 1946
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 857 OF 2024(S) IN WP(C) 32048/2023
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SAMEER M., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN RAWTHER MAKKU,
AASHIYANA, JANASAKTHY ROAD, VELLOORKUNNAM P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 673.
BY ADVOCATES M/S. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
& NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY.
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
1. TINKU BISWAL, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED
2. ANI P.N, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O OFFICE,
GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM- MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA 686 673.
ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/03/2025
IN IA 5/2024 IN COC
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
03.03.2025, the court on the same day passed the following:
Con.Case(C) No.857/2024 2/7
CoC.No.857/24
1
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Con.Case (C).No.857 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2025
ORDER
This contempt of court case is submitted for non compliance
of the directions issued in W.P.C.No.32048 of 2023. As per the
said judgment, this Court directed the respondent to refund the
excess amount collected from the petitioner as conversion fee for
processing the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-6.
The dispute pertains to the question as to the conversion fee
applicable as on the date of the application of the petitioner.
However, the said issue is already settled by this Court in
W.P.C.No.34156 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, wherein it was
categorically observed that, what is to be taken into account is the
fair value of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ
petition as on the date of application. The said observation was
made as per the definition of fair value as contained in Section
2(viA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008, as it stood prior to the amendment made with effect from
01.04.2020. The term "Fair value" was defined therein as follows:
(viA) "Fair value" means the fair value of the land
fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act,
1959 (17 of 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;"
2. Thus, for the purpose of fixing the conversion fee, fair
value ought to have been reckoned based on the fair value of the
land, which is the subject matter of the conversion. Later, an
amendment was brought into the aforesaid provision by which, the
fair value applicable for conversion feee was fixed as the fair
value of the garden land adjacent to the unnotified land for which
the fair value has been fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala
Stamp Act, 1959.
3. Here in this case, the conversion fee collected by the
respondent was fixed on the basis of the fair value as per the
amendment brought in, with effect from 01.04.2020, even though
the application of the petitioner was dated 30.08.2019. This was
interfered with by this Court in W.P.C.No.34156 of 2022 with a
clear finding that the respondent can only apply the fair value as
defined under Section 2(ivA), which stood prior to the amendment.
That means the fair value ought to have been calculated based on
the property which is the subject matter of the conversion. Acting
upon the same, Annexure-B order was initially passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, in which the fair value of the property
of the petitioner was taken as the basis, which was Rs.1,25,000/-
per Are and taking note of the subsequent enhancement of the fair
value as per the various Government Orders referred to as
reference Nos.7, 8 and 9 in the said order, the actual payable fair
value amount was fixed as Rs.2,26,875/- per Are. Accordingly, the
amount to be refunded was fixed as Rs.6,41,351/-.
4. Later, while taking note the steps to implement the
directions issued by this Court in W.P.C.No.32048 of 2023,
Annexure-B order was recalled and a fresh order was passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, in which the fair value calculated
was on the basis of a property lying adjacent to the property of the
petitioner and thus, the excess amount to be refunded was fixed as
Rs.85,054/- only. It is seen from the records that, even though the
respondents challenged the judgments in W.P.C.Nos.34156 of 2022
and 32048 of 2023, the same was disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court by a common judgment, without interfering in
the findings of the learned Single Judge, by taking note of the fact
that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order directing
the refund of Rs.85,054/-. However, in the judgment in the said
writ appeal, it was specifically observed by the Division Bench of
this Court that, the question as to whether the order dated
10.08.2024 by which the amount to be refunded was fixed as
Rs.85,054/-, has been passed in compliance with the order of the
learned Single Judge will be decided by this Court on the
Contempt of Court Case. Thus, in the light of the observations
made by the Division Bench of this Court, this court has to
consider the question whether the order passed by the respondent
fixing the amount to be refunded as Rs 85,054/- is proper.
5. Thus when the issue is considered, it is seen that, the
order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer which is produced
as Annexure-F, in this Contempt of Court Case is against the
specific observations made by this Court to the effect that the
conversion fee is to be calculated on the basis of fair value of the
property of the petitioner and by applying the definition of fair
value stood as on the date of the application. In Annxure-F order,
the fair value adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was the
fair value to that of the adjacent property which is not in tune with
the observations in the judgment rendered by this Court.
5. Therefore, prima facie I find that, Annexure-F order is
not in consonance with directions issued by this Court. Therefore,
the additional 2nd respondent shall take necessary steps to issue
appropriate orders in tune with the directions issued by this Court
in the judgments in WP(C) Nos 32048/2023 and 34156/2022,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
Post on 21.03.2025 for reporting compliance.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG/3.3.25
03-03-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 857/2024
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE REFUND ORDER DATED 15/12/2022 ISSUED
BY THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE
RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.
03-03-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
