Elizabeth vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 11, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1386963

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/1386963
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Oct 11, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/29003/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Elizabeth

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....25 cents, the conversion fee is liable to be paid.4. in the decision in sumesh u. v. revenue divisional officer -:4:-palakkad [2023 (3) khc 431], this court has already observed that a conversion fee is not payable for land upto 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.5. on a perusal of ext.p2, it is noticed that, the extent of land ofthe petitioner totals to 10.12 ares, which is equivalent to 25.0065 cents. it is evident that, only a minuscule fraction of the property exceeds 25 cents. the said fraction ought to be rounded off to 25 cents, and therefore, petitioner is entitled to have the changes effected without any conversion fee. however, the position would be different if on 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of section 27a of the act) petitioner or her predecessor-in-title possessed more than 25 cents as per the parent title deed.6. in the circumstances, petitioner's title deed, including those ofher predecessor-in-title, are to be verified to assess whether the extent of land was above 25 cents as on 30-12-2017. if, on such verification, the extent is less than 25 cents, then no conversion fee shall be payable. ext.p2 communication has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence it is liable to be set aside.-:5:-7. accordingly, i set aside ext.p2 and direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decision in baby’s case(supra) and sumesh’s case (supra). a decision shall be taken 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ELIZABETH AGED 24 YEARS DAUGHTER OF ISSAC THOMAS, NADACKAL HOUSE, CMC 10, CHERTHALA PO, PIN - 688524 BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD, NEAR CENTRAL STADIUM, STATUE JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPUZHA, BESIDE ZILLA PACHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688001 3 SUB COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA, BESIDE ZILLA PACHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688001 4 VILLAGE OFFICER KOKOTHAMANGALAM, KERALA, PIN - 686666 -:2:-
BY ADV. DEEPA N SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of October, 2023

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of 10.12 Ares of land in Survey No.88/20 of Kokothamangalam Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District. Petitioner’s property is an unnotified land and therefore, her application in Form-6 under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, (for short, 'the Act') was found liable to be allowed. However, by Ext.P2, communication dated 31.07.2023, 3 rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay a conversion fee for the entire extent of 10.12 Ares.

2. Sri. Peeyus A Kottam, 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 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 -:4:-

Palakkad [2023 (3) KHC 431], this Court has already observed that a conversion fee is not payable for land upto 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.

5. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is noticed that, the extent of land of

the petitioner totals to 10.12 Ares, which is equivalent to 25.0065 cents. It is evident that, only a minuscule fraction of the property exceeds 25 cents. The said fraction ought to be rounded off to 25 cents, and therefore, petitioner is entitled to have the changes effected without any conversion fee. However, the position would be different if on 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of Section 27A of the Act) petitioner or her predecessor-in-title possessed more than 25 cents as per the parent title deed.

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

her predecessor-in-title, are to be verified to assess whether the extent of land was above 25 cents as on 30-12-2017. If, on such verification, the extent is less than 25 cents, then no conversion fee shall be payable. Ext.P2 communication has been issued without bearing in mind the above legal principles and hence it is liable to be set aside.

-:5:-

7. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P2 and direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decision in Baby’s case

(supra) and Sumesh’s case (supra). A decision shall be taken 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/11.10.23. -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29003/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.07.2021 SHOWING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THE AFORESAID 10.12 ARES (25.006 CENTS) OF PROPERTY. Exhibit P2 TRUE OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUB COLLECTOR DATED 31/07/2023 IN FILE NO. J2 6268/2021. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS

HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2021 (6) KHC 318 (BABY M.K. AND OTHERS V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EKM AND OTHERS).

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