Malathi Vijayakumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 16, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1386016

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/1386016
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Oct 16, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/28507/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Malathi Vijayakumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the conversion fee is liable to be paid.4. in the decision in sumesh u. v. revenue divisionalofficer palakkad [2023 (3) khc 431], this court has already observed that a 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 v. district collector [2021 (6) klt 316], the circular no.169/2022 was held to be 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. similarly, in the decision in state of kerala v. moushmi ann jacob [2023 (5) khc 337], it was held that if property is in excess of 25 cents, the conversion fee needs to be paid only in respect of property in excess of 25 cents.5. in the circumstances, petitioner's title deed, including thoseof her predecessor-in-title, is to be verified to assess whether any of them possessed an extent of land above 25 cents as on 30-12-2017. if, on such verification, the extent is less than 25 cents, then no fee shall be payable. ext.p1 notice has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence it is liable to be set aside.6. accordingly, i set aside ext.p1 and direct the 2nd respondent-:5:- 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 sumesh's case (supra) and moushmi ann jacob’s case (supra) , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two 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 jka/16.10.23. -:6:- appendix of wp(c) 28507/2023 petitioner’s exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of order issued by the 2ndrespondent to the petitioner under the provisions of paddy land act bearing no. a11-2607/21 dated 15.06.2022.exhibit p2 true copy.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 28507 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MALATHI VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 59 YEARS W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR VETTIKKALIL HOUSE, PULINATTU LANE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT MOB - 9447232266, BY ADVS. V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) N.RAJESH GOPAKUMAR P. JERRY JAISON RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR.P.O MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 3 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK -:2:- REVENUE TOWER, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686666 BY ADV. DEEPA.N, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2023

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 13.77 Ares of property in Survey No.157/8B-2 of Eramalloor Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam District. The aforesaid property has not been included in the data bank. However, in the Basic Tax Register, the land is classified as ‘Nilam’. The property is thus an unnotified land. 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 nature of unnotified land. By a communication dated 15.06.2022, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay a conversion fee under Section 27A(3)of the Act.

2. Sri. V.Rajendran, 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. Smt. Deepa.N, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on

the other hand, submitted that the prior title deeds as well as that of -:4:- the petitioner’s title deed are required to be verified, and if the extent is above 25 cents, the 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 a 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 v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316], the Circular No.169/2022 was held to be 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. Similarly, in the decision in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [2023 (5) KHC 337], it was held that if property is in excess of 25 cents, the conversion fee needs to be paid only in respect of property in excess of 25 cents.

5. In the circumstances, petitioner's title deed, including those

of her predecessor-in-title, is to be verified to assess whether any of them possessed an extent of land above 25 cents as on 30-12-2017. If, on such verification, the extent is less than 25 cents, then no fee shall be payable. Ext.P1 notice has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence it is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P1 and direct the 2nd respondent

-:5:- 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 Sumesh's case (supra) and Moushmi Ann Jacob’s case (supra) , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two 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 Jka/16.10.23. -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28507/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PADDY LAND ACT BEARING NO. A11-2607/21 DATED 15.06.2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER

(ORDINARY) NO. 1166/2021/REV DATED 25.02.2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 01.04.2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN W.A NO. 983/2023 DATED 01.08.2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit p7 TRUE COPY PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 10.08.2023. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 4203 OF KOTHANAMGALAM SRO DATED 31.8.2013

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Malathi Vijayakumar vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas