Abdul Khader, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 30, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1348252

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1348252
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Sep 30, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/9798/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Khader,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....cents, conversion fee is liable to be paid.4. in the decision in sumesh u. v. revenue divisional officer,palakkad [2023 (3) khc 431], this court has already observed that conversion fee is not payable for an extent of land less than 25 cents under section 27a of the act. further, in the decision in baby m.k. v. district collector, ernakulam [2021 (6) klt 316], the circular relied upon by the 2 nd respondent in ext.p4 (circular no.169/2022) was held unconstitutional. thus based on the legal principles laid down in the above decisions, an applicant under section 27a of the act is not liable to pay any conversion fee to the extent of 25 cents.5. since petitioner purchased the property in 2021, the prior title deedought to be verified to assess whether the petitioner or his predecessor-in-title possessed an extent of land above 25 cents. if on such verification the extent is less than 25 cents, then no conversion fee is payable. ext.p4 notice has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence the same is liable to be set aside.6. accordingly, i set aside ext.p4 and direct the 2 nd respondent toconsider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application under form 6 of the rules, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decision in baby m.k.’s case (supra) and sumesh's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. the writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- bechu kurian thomas, judge rkm appendix of wp(c) 9798/2023 petitioner's exhibits : exhibit p1 true copy of the land tax receipt bearing no.kl10050505831/2021dated 10.08.2021 issued from the edakkara village office to the petitioner exhibit p2 true copy of the sale deed dated 01.07.2021 exhibit p3 true copy of the sale deed no. 4577/2014 dated 20.10.2014 exhibit p4 true copy of the letter bearing no.rdoptm/1965/2022/m1 dated 10.06.2022 issued by the respondent.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SATURDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 8TH ASWINA, 1945 PETITIONER : ABDUL KHADER, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O ALI MOLLA, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 331 BY ADVS. P.MOHAMED SABAH LIBIN STANLEY SAIPOOJA SADIK ISMAYIL R.GAYATHRI M.MAHIN HAMZA ALWIN JOSEPH RESPONDENTS : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER / SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, KERALA, PIN - 679 322
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 331 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 331 BY SMT.SHEEBA.G., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.9798 of 2023 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 30th day of September, 2023

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 2.83 Ares in Survey No.1059/1-99-3 of Edakkara Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District. The aforesaid property has not been included in the data bank. But the revenue records classified the land as ‘Nilam’. Petitioner applied in Form 6 under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act') to change the user of land. However, the 2 nd respondent by communication dated 10.06.2022 directed the petitioner to pay a conversion fee under Section 27A(3)of the Act .

2. Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no conversion fee is payable for an extent of land less than 25 cents and therefore the demand is without any basis.

3. Sri.Sheeba G., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,

submitted that petitioner’s sale deed is of the year 2021 and therefore the prior sale deed and the extent of of land is required to be verified and if the extent is above 25 cents, conversion fee is liable to be paid.

4. In the decision in Sumesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Palakkad [2023 (3) KHC 431], this Court has already observed that conversion fee is not payable for an extent of land less than 25 cents under Section 27A of the Act. Further, in the decision in Baby M.K. v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (6) KLT 316], the Circular relied upon by the 2 nd respondent in Ext.P4 (Circular No.169/2022) was held unconstitutional. Thus based on the legal principles laid down in the above decisions, an applicant under Section 27A of the Act is not liable to pay any conversion fee to the extent of 25 cents.

5. Since petitioner purchased the property in 2021, the prior title deed

ought to be verified to assess whether the petitioner or his predecessor-in-title possessed an extent of land above 25 cents. If on such verification the extent is less than 25 cents, then no conversion fee is payable. Ext.P4 notice has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the 2 nd respondent to

consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application under Form 6 of the Rules, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decision in Baby M.K.’s case (supra) and Sumesh's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9798/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.KL10050505831/2021DATED 10.08.2021 ISSUED FROM THE EDAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 01.07.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4577/2014 DATED 20.10.2014 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.RDOPTM/1965/2022/M1 DATED 10.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 369/21 DATED 25.02.2021 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. REV-

P1/69/2022-REV DATED 07.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM-ORDER DATED 23.08.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO. 23903/2022

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Abdul Khader, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas