Nafeesa vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6232 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6232 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 May, 2025

Kerala High Court

Nafeesa vs The State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:36084
WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

                                 1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         NAFEESA
         AGED 61 YEARS
         W/O. IBRAHIM, KAROTHUKUDY HOUSE, PALLIPURAM,
         MARAMBILLY VILLAGE, MUDICKAL P.O., KUNNATHUNADU
         TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683547


         BY ADVS.
         K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
         P.K.MINIMOLE
         A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
         BAPPU GALIB SALAM
         G.MOTILAL




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
         DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2    DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) ERNAKULAM
         COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 682030



OTHER PRESENT:

         SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
                                                          2025:KER:36084
WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

                                      2




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   26.05.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:36084
WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

                                      3


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext.P8 (Form 6) application

submitted under Section 27A r/w Rule 12(1) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and

Rules, 2008 ('Act' and 'Rules' in short) without insisting

for any additional amount as demanded under Ext.P9

notice.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of

24.89 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.150/6-2,

150/9 and 150/5-2 of the Marambilly Village in

Kunnathunadu Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt.

Out of the three items of land covered by Ext.P1 tax

receipt, 7 Ares and 49 sq.ft is described in the revenue

records as wetland. In fact, the said land is also a

garden land and is covered with plantation. The

petitioner had constructed two buildings in the above 2025:KER:36084 WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

property prior to the commencement of the Act, and is

running two industries in the said property, which is

evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5 certificates. In order to

change the nature of land notified in the revenue

records, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 application

before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent

has issued Ext.P9 demand notice, directing the

petitioner to deposit Rs.4,75,002/- to consider Ext.P8. In

Abad Builders Private Ltd v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KLT

OnLine 1033], this Court has struck down Note No.(1)

to the schedule promulgated under Rule 12(9) of the

Rules. Therefore, the demand made in Ext.P9 is

untenable. The 2nd respondent is obliged to consider

Ext.P8 without any condition. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

4. In Abad Builders Private Ltd (supra), this Court

has struck down Note.(1) of the schedule to the Rules as 2025:KER:36084 WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

unconstitutional. Moreover, in Shiji Joshy v. State of

Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 502], this Court has already held

that there cannot be a demand for tax in respect of

conversion fee in respect of existing buildings. In view

of the authoritative pronouncements by this Court in the

afore-cited decisions, I find that the demand under

Exts.P9 and Ext.P18 are untenable.

5. On a consideration of the facts and materials on

record, especially that Ext.P8 application is pending

consideration before the 2nd respondent since

28.12.2023 and the same is statutory in nature, without

expressing anything on the merits of the application,

other than the observation that the respondents have no

right to demand for conversion fee, I dispose of the writ

petition in the following manner:

(i) Exts.P9 and P18 demand notices are quashed.

(ii)The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed

to consider Ext.P8 application, in accordance with law 2025:KER:36084 WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 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/26.05.2025 2025:KER:36084 WP(C) NO. 19243 OF 2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.05.2023

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.06.2023

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 5090/1997 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO, DATED 07.11.1997

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.04.2023

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.04.2023

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.08.2005

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2023

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM-6 DATED 28.12.2023