Allowed

P.Rajappan Nair v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Kerala HC3 Dec 2019WP(C)/6860/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order computing conversion fees based on a neighbouring property's fair value instead of the petitioner's, holding such calculation violates the Paddy Land Act and related Rules. The court directed the officer to compute fees based on the notified fair value of the specific property.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P10 is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to quantify the fee based on the specific property's notified fair value within two weeks.

P.Rajappan Nair Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6860 OF 2019(F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 P.RAJAPPAN NAIR, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. LATE KUNJAN NAIR, AIKKARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., KURRUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545. (DIED)

¶8

Addl 2 V.G.LEKSHMIKKUTTY, AGED 74 YEARS w/O LATE P.RAJAPPAN NAIR, AIKKARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., KURRUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545.

¶9

Impleaded as per order dated 03.12.2019 in IA 1/19 BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH SMT.MANJUSHA K

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 673. 2 THE TAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU,PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 542. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, THURUTHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545.

¶12

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MUDAKKUZHZA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683 543. BY SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN - G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 6860/19

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of December 2019

¶17

The original petitioner has approached this Court impugning Exhibit P10 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, through which the fees with respect to the property comprised of in R.S.No.4205-2 of Kunnathunadu Taluk, Vengoor West Village under the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Paddy Land Act') has been ordered to be paid based on the fair value of a neighbouring property, but not that of his. However, pending this lis, the original petitioner died and his legal heir has been impleaded as the additional petitioner. Hence, the reference to the word 'petitioner' hereinafter will be to the additional petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner says that Exhibit P10 is completely untenable and goes contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No. 30555/2019, wherein this Court has already declared that after valuation of the statutory provisions involved, while calculating the fees payable under Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Land Act, only the fair value notified on the property in question can be adopted and not that of a neighbouring property. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exhibit P10 be set aside and the respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer be directed to complete the proceedings and issue appropriate orders on Exhibit P6

¶19

WPC 6860/19

¶20

¶21

application made by the original petitioner under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot maintain a challenge against Exhibit P10 because the Revenue Divisional Officer was acting as per law and all that he stated therein is that the property similar to that of the petitioner will be identified and its fair value taken as the basis for the purpose of the fees to be paid by the petitioner. She says that since the petitioner's property had been wrongly shown as a paddy land in the Fair Value Notification under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has been directed to take into account the fair value of a property which is similar to that of the petitioners therein.

¶23

Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is ineluctable that this Court has already considered a similar matter, if not identical, in W.P.(C)No.30555/2019 and a judgment in favour of the petitioner, who was similarly placed. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to extract the full judgment below for ease of reference:

¶24

“The manner of computation of the fee, to be paid by the owner of a property, under the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Paddy Land Act” for short) has been drawn into rumination in this writ petition.

¶25

WPC 6860/19

¶26

¶27

The specific stipulations of Section 27A of the afore Act will need a quick glance, if one has to fully appreciate the issues impelled in this writ petition, for which purpose, I reproduce it as below:

¶28

“Section 27A: Change of nature of unnotified land : (1) if any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilize such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶29

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary: Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

¶30

(3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may be prescribed:

¶31

Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4^th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.”

¶32

The cause that has forced the petitioner to approach this Court will be clear from the facts presented, which, I will narrate first compendiously.

¶33

The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P7 notice, as per which, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has directed him to remit certain amounts, as being the fees under the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

¶34

As per the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P7, the RDO has quantified the amount payable by him, not based on the Fair Value of his property the conversion of which has now been regularized under the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act but on the basis of the Fair Value of a neighbouring property. The petitioner says that this is untenable, going by the afore extracted prescriptions of the Paddy Land Act, as also Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Rules' for short), which mandates that only the Fair Value of the property in question be taken into account while quantifying the fee to be paid under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

¶35

WPC 6860/19

¶36

¶37

The petitioner further says that the definition of 'Fair Value', as provided under Section 2(viA) of the Paddy Land Act, makes it ineluctable that it is the value of a property notified under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and no other; and that it is only in the case where it has not been so notified, can the Fair Value for similarly situated lands be taken into account. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be set aside and the RDO be directed to recalculate the fees payable by him in terms of the afore provisions.

¶38

In response, the learned Special Government Pleader, Shri.Hanil Kumar, submits that the RDO has issued Ext.P7 order, since it was found that the Fair Value of the property of the petitioner, notified under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, was fixed incorrectly - a lower value - having been ascribed to it in the relevant notification wrongly deeming it to be a 'Wet Land'. He says that once conversion of the property had been regularized through Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, its value rose exponentially; and it is, therefore, that the RDO decided to adopt the Fair Value with respect to a neighbouring property for the purpose of quantifying the fee payable by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be left uninterdicted and the petitioner be directed to pay the fees as per the directions therein.

¶39

Even when I hear the learned Special Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is rendered without doubt, on a conjoint reading of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and Rule 12(9) of the Paddy Land Rules, that the fee payable under the former provision can be computed solely on the Fair Value of the property fixed as per Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. Even a cursory reading of Rule 12(9) of the Paddy Land Rules would render this irrefutable, and, therefore, to enable its full reading, I extract it below:

¶40

This is then amply fortified by Schedule 2 to the Paddy Land Rules, wherein it is specified that the fees under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act will be the specified percentage of the “Fair Value of the property involved”.

¶41

Further, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the term ”Fair Value” has been defined in the Paddy Land

¶42

WPC 6860/19

¶43

¶44

Act to mean the value of the property in question, notified under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. This is limpid from the statutory definition available in Section 2(viA) of the Paddy Land Act, which reads as under:

¶45

2(viA) “Fair value” means the fair value of the land fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959) or where the fair value of the land has not been fixed, the fair value of the land fixed for similar and similarly situated land;

¶46

It, therefore, becomes indubitably manifest from the above that the fee under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act can be quantified only on the basis of the Fair Value of the specific property involved, as fixed and notified under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act and in no other manner; and consequently, I cannot find favour with Ext.P7 proceedings of the RDO, which adopts the Fair Value of a similarly placed property but not the Fair Value of the property in question, even though the same has been concededly notified under the Kerala Stamp Act, as is evident from Exts.P5 and P6.

¶47

In the afore forensic background, it is unnecessary to further say that the contention of the learned Government Pleader-that on grant of permission under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, the value of the property would rise augmentally and therefore, that its notified Fair Value cannot be adopted to assess the fee payable under the said Section-would garner no legal force. This is luculent because, when the provisions of law mandate that only the notified Fair Value be reckoned for such purpose, it is only that which can be taken into account and no other.

¶48

In such perspective, even the argument that there was a mistake in notifying the value of the property under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act would be of no avail, since nothing had prevented the competent Authorities under the said Act in rectifying such mistake, even assuming there was any such, through due process; but the RDO cannot be heard to say unilaterally that he deems such notification to be in error and then to fix the value as he pleases. This is contrary to law and opposed to the delineated perimeters of the jurisdiction of the said Authority under the Paddy Land Act.

¶49

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7, and consequently, direct the RDO and such other competent Authorities to quantify the fee payable by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act in terms of the observations above and to intimate him appropriately within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the petitioner will be liable to pay the same forthwith, so as to obtain final orders under the said section from the RDO, which shall be issued without any further delay thereafter.”

¶50

WPC 6860/19

¶51

¶52

When one examines the facts involved in this case and those noticed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.30555/2019, it is beyond doubt that they are in pari materia and therefore, the petitioner herein also deserves a similar treatment. This is particularly because this Court had already found that an order akin to Exhibit P10 cannot be sustained for the reasons that I have already stated in the aforeextracted judgment.

¶53

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exhibit P10 and direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to quantify the fee payable by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act in terms of the observations in the afore extracted judgment in W.P.(C)No.30555/2019 and to intimate him appropriately within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the petitioner will be liable to pay the same forthwith, so as to obtain final orders under the said Section from the Revenue Divisional Officer, which shall be issued without any further delay thereafter.

¶54

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

tkv

WPC 6860/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4780 DATED 26.5.2005 OF KURUPPAMPADY SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 3.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE WALL MADE OF CONCRETE BLOCKS BUILT IN THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT SMALL CANAL IS PASSING IN BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE CHELLAN RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATIONS SKETCH PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TABLE PUBLISHED IN TERMS OF RULE 12 (9) OF THE KERALA PADDY AND WETLAND RULES.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶61

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶62

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER

¶63

/TRUE COPY/

P.Rajappan Nair v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajappan Nair v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.T.Harilal Vs the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

Ponnakkambat Premalatha Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

Moly Vs the Secretary, Kollam Corporation

Sahajan.M.E Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Shopprix India Private Limited, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer