Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Suhara vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6486 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6486 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 May, 2025

Kerala High Court

Suhara vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                           2025:KER:37634
WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

                                    1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                     WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

           SUHARA,
           AGED 50 YEARS
           W/O MUHAMMED ZULFICKAR, KOLLATTU HOUSE, PALLINADA,
           AALA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680668


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



RESPONDENTS:

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

     2     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA,
           1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD, ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
           KERALA, PIN - 680125
            GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   30.05.2025,   THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:37634
WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

                                2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7

demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent to change

the nature of the classification of the petitioner's

property.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.69

Ares of land comprised in Survey No.202/2 of the

Thekkumkara Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur

District, covered by Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The

property was settled in her favour by her parents as

per Ext.P2 settlement deed. The said property was

converted decades back. However, in the revenue

records, the property was classified as 'Nilam'. In the

said background, the petitioner filed a Form 5

application, which was allowed on 09.05.2022.

Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4

application (Form 6) to change the classification of the 2025:KER:37634 WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

land in the revenue records. The 2 nd respondent has

issued Ext.P7 notice, demanding the petitioner to

remit Rs.1,62,413/- towards conversion charges as

contemplated under Section 27A of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in

short, 'Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. The

extent of land is only 7.69 Ares. Therefore, the

petitioner is not obliged to pay any conversion fee.

Ext.P2 settlement deed is dated 21.8.2007, which

undoubtedly exhibits that the extent is only 7.69 Ares.

Therefore, Ext.P7 notice is illegal and is liable to be

quashed, in view of the law laid down by this Court in

Thahira C.K. v. Village Officer, Thalassery [ 2024 (3)

KHC 465].

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement,

inter-alia , stating that, the Village Officer, Thekkumkara

has reported that, even though the applied property is

7.69 Ares, as the petitioner is also in possession of 25 2025:KER:37634 WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

cents of land in Vallivattom Village, which is also

classified as "Nilam", she is not entitled to an exemption

of conversion fee. Therefore, Ext.P7 demand is

justifiable.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

5. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has only

sought for change of nature of her property having an

extent of 7.69 Ares, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt,

in Thekkumkara Village. Rule 12 of the Rules lays down

the procedure for permitting change in nature of

unnotified land.

6. It is apposite to refer to sub-rules (1) to (3) of

Rule 12, which reads as follows:

(1) In the case of an application for changing the nature of unnotified land having an extent upto 20.23 Are, the application shall be in Form-6 and that in respect of land having an extent above 20.23 Are shall be in Form-7.

(2) Along with the application, sketch of such land, details regarding the plinth area of the building proposed to be constructed on said land shall be enclosed and wherein the extent of proposed land exceeds 20.23 Are, Ten percentage (10 %) of the proposed land kept aside as a part of water conservancy measures shall be marked in the sketch in blue 2025:KER:37634 WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

colour and the rest of the land shall be marked in red colour clearly in the sketch and a detailed plan regarding the water conservancy measures proposed to be implemented on the said 10 % land shall be included therein.

(3) Along with the said application either a demand draft of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) in favour of said fund or proof of deposit of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) via electronic transfer to the said fund shall be produced.

7. As per the above extracted Rules, a land

owner with upto 20.23 Ares of land is only submit a

Form 6 application, for change of nature of land. It is

only when the extent of land exceeds 20.23 Ares, the

land owner is obliged to submit a Form 7 application and

pay the conversion fee as per the Schedule framed

under Rule 12(9) of the Rules.

8. In the case at hand, as the petitioner only

possess 7.69 Ares of land, he is not bound to pay the

conversion fee. Merely because the petitioner is holder

of a paddy land in some other village, covered by a

totally different document and for which he has not

applied for conversion, the 2nd respondent cannot

demand for conversion fee. The demand made by the 2 nd

respondent is unjustifiable and untenable.

2025:KER:37634 WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ

petition, by quashing Ext.P7 demand notice, and direct

the 2nd respondent/authorised officer to forthwith issue

the conversion certificate to the petitioner, without

demanding for any fee.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/30/5/2025 2025:KER:37634 WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13416/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 09.05.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO 2851/2007 DATED 20.08.2007 OF SRO VADAKKUMKARA Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5690/2023 DATED 13.09.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION NO.

70/2023/232003 DATED 15.11.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.1166/RE DATED 25.02.2021 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE HAVING FILE NO.

3416/2024 DATED 18.05.2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter