Kerala High Court
C. Ramachandran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 March, 2025
2025:KER:24666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 12 DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34560 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
C. RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 73 YEARS,S/O PUZHANKARA RAMAN MENON, RESIDING
AT FLAT NO. 9261, JADE, SOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL,
PURANATTUKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680553
BY ADVS.
ASOK KUMAR K.P.
GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
THRISSUR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
Shri.Renjith.S, Spl.G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023
2
2025:KER:24666
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6 of the
Kerala Land Ultilisation Order, 1967, before the 1 st respondent,
seeking conversion of property having an extent of 1.53 Ares. The
said property formed part of the property of the petitioner
purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 20.04.1992. The total
extent of the property purchased as per Ext.P1 was 13.35 Ares.
After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner submitted
an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation order
and according to him the said application was allowed as per order
dated 13.11.1992, permitting the petitioner to covert an extent of
25 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.187. Accordingly the
petitioner had converted the land and the Form 6 application was
submitted by the petitioner in respect of the remaining extent of
the property i.e 1.53 Ares. Ext.P3 is the application.
2. After processing Ext.P3 application, the 1st respondent
has now issued Ext.P4 notice requiring the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.4,03,920/- as conversion fee for the property.
According to the 1st respondent, as the total extent of the property
2025:KER:24666
covered as per Ext.P1 sale deed is 33 cents, the petitioner is not
entitled to exemption as contemplated under serial No.1 in
Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such
circumstances challenging Ext.P4.
3. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 1 st
respondent wherein, the relief sought by the petitioner are
opposed. They have incorporated contentions reiterating the
stand taken by them.
4. I have heard Sri.Asok Kumar P Kodath, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith S, the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. The only challenge raised in this writ petition pertains
to the Ext.P4 order which is a demand of conversion fee. As per
the serial No. 1 in the Schedule of the Rules, the property having
an extent less than 25 cents is eligible to exemption from payment
of the conversion fee. In this case, the petitioner applied for
conversion only for 1.53 Ares and therefore going by the extent of
the property mentioned in Form 6 application, he is entitled to
2025:KER:24666
exemption. However the same was rejected only because of the
reason that, in the title deed of the petitioner which is Ext.P1, the
total extent mentioned is 33 cents and therefore according to the
2nd respondent, he is not eligible for exemption.
6. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, out of
the 33 cents of the property, an extent of 25 cents is already
permitted to be converted by virtue of the order passed by the
Sub Collector Thrissur, under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order as early as on 13.11.1992. The petitioner has
specifically pleaded this aspect in the writ petition, and during the
course of the hearing, a copy of the said order was also made
available before this Court for perusal. If that be so, i.e, if 25
cents of the property is permitted to be converted, the same
cannot be taken into account for the purpose of conversion fee.
This is because, it is now settled by the decision rendered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in The Tahasildar v. Renjith George
[2025 1 KHC 271] that, in respect of properties where the owner
thereof could obtain order under Clause 6 of Kerala Land
Utilisation Order before 30.12.2017, the date on which the Section
2025:KER:24666
27A of the Paddy Land Act was introduced, he cannot be imposed
with the liability to undergo the procedure contemplated under
Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Paddy Land Act).
Therefore, as far as the 25 cents of property covered by the order
dated 13.11.1992 issued under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation
Order is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of the
proceeding under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and therefore
the same cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the
conversion fee.
7. Moreover, in this case as rightly pointed out by the
petitioner, he submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 6 only in
respect of 1.53 Ares, which is the property now remaining in his
possession which is not covered as per the order of KLU order.
Therefore, when considering Form 6 application and calculating
the conversion fee, the same has to be reckoned only in respect of
the extent of the property mentioned in Ext.P3. Since the 25
cents of property referred to in Ext.P1, is already granted with
permission to be utilised for non-agricultural purposes as per
2025:KER:24666
clause 6 of the KLU Order, the same cannot be considered for
fixing the conservation fee. Therefore the stand taken by the 1 st
respondent in Ext.P4 is not justifiable and hence the matter needs
an interference.
Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4
with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3
application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the
question of conversion fee after examining the genuineness of the
order passed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order on 13.11.1992, a
copy of which shall be produced by the petitioner before the said
respondent. The identity of the said property shall also be verified
and an order in this regard shall be passed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. After
examining the same, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to
exemption, the fee collected from the petitioner shall be refunded
within a period of three months from the date of such order.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
rpk
2025:KER:24666
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34560/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1832/92
DATED 20.04.1992 OF SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLOTTED BY A
LICENSED SURVEYOR AS COUNTERSIGNED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
03.01.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 566/2023 DATED
24.03.2023
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4440
OF 2023 DATED 10.02.2023
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT
NO.KL08017401420/2023 DATED 25.03.2023
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 566/2023
DATED 10.04.2023
Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1-
528854/2023 DATED 18.05.2023
Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11.09.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D7-
1/2023/969673 DATED 06.10.2023
Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN MOUSHMI ANN JACOB V.
STATE OF KERALA [2023(5)KHC 339] (CITED
JUDGMENT) DATED 06.02.2023
2025:KER:24666
Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA VS
MOUSHMI ANN JACOB [2023(5)KHC 337(DB)]
DATED 01.08.2023
