Allowed

Ramla P.A. v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC16 Feb 2021WP(C)/26352/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order demanding excessive fees for land use permission. The Court held that fees must be calculated based on the Rules in force on the application date, prior to a 2020 amendment, quashing the过高 levies.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 communication directing payment is quashed; respondent directed to recompute fees and issue communication within one month.

Ramla P.A. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAMLA P.A. AGED 56 YEARS KADAVATH HOUSE, EDAYAPPURAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 669.

¶11

2 VILLAGE OFFICER VELLURKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 669.

¶12

R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

SMT.G. RANJITA - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.26352 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner holds a land measuring 8.90 Ares in Survey No.864/11-3 of Vellurkunnam Village. The land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. The same, however, is not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The land therefore falls within the definition of 'un-notified land' in terms of the provisions of the Act. In order to make use of the said land for other purposes, the petitioner has preferred an application for permission under Section 27A of the Act. On the said application, having satisfied that the land of the petitioner would fall within the definition of 'unnotified land', the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.42,72,000/- towards the fees payable by her under Section 27A(3) of the Act. Ext.P5 is the communication issued in this regard by the first respondent. Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶20

The case set out by the petitioner in the writ

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶23

petition is that she is liable to pay only 20% of the fair value of the land towards fees under Section 27A(3) of the Act. It is stated by the petitioner that the fair value of the land of the petitioner is only Rs.3,75,000/- per Are and the fees payable by the petitioner under Section 27A(3) of the Act is therefore, only 20% of the said amount and the fees has been computed and mentioned in Ext.P5 communication, reckoning the fair value of the land at Rs.12,00,000/- per Are.

¶24

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the statement is that though the fair value of the land of the petitioner is only Rs.3,75,000/- per Are , as the l and of the petitioner is similar to the adjacent land, the fair value of which is Rs.12,00,000/-, in the light of Act 8 of 2020, fees has been computed reckoning the fair value of the land at Rs.12,00,000/-per Are.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

It is seen that the petitioner has preferred the application under Section 27A of the Act on 01.08.2019. In

¶27

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶28

¶29

Ajith Kumar Shenoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020

¶30

(5) KLT 683, this Court held that the fees payable for the application under Section 27A(3) of the Act is to be computed in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder prevailing as on the date of the application. As on the date of the application, the requirement of the fees was as provided for under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (the Rules). Rule 12(9) of the Rules provides that the fees payable shall be the fees as specified in the Schedule to the Rules. The Schedule to the Rules provides that the fees payable in respect of a land situated within the limits of the Municipality is 20% of the fair value. The expression 'fair value' was then defined in the Act as the fair value of the land fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 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. As far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, Ext.P4 communication issued by the Village Officer indicates that the fair value of the land is fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- per Are. In other words, the petitioner is liable

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶33

to pay fee only at the rate of 20% of Rs.3,75,000/- per Are.

¶34

True, in terms of Act 8 of 2020, the definition

¶35

of 'fair value' in the Act has been amended enabling the competent authority to determine the fees payable under Section 27A(3) of the Act based on the fair value of the adjacent similar land, if the fair value of the said land is high er. As indicated, Act 8 of 2020 does not have any application to the facts of the present case, as the application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Act long prior to the coming into force of Act 8 of 2020.

¶36

I n the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P5 communication, to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay Rs.42,72,000/- by way of fees under Section 27A(3) of the Act is quashed and the first respondent is directed to recompute the fees payable by the petitioner as indicated in paragraph 5 of this judgment and issue appropriate communication to the petitioner so as to enable her to obtain permission under Section 27A of the Act. This shall be done within one month.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.26352 OF 2020(T)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2733/2015 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 27A APPLICATION DATED 01/08/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY & FAIR VALUE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/08/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08/09/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE EXTRACT OF THE COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT PLOTS IN SY.NO.864 OF VELLURKUNNAM VILLAGE.

Ramla P.A. v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramla P.A. v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shajahan Vs the Secretary, Vazhikadavu Grama Panchayath

Ramesh Kumar.J Vs State of Kerala

Sathiamma Vs State of Kerala

J and P Sand and Aggregates International Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Raji Mathew Vs Union of India

Saheeda Kunju Muhammed Vs Revenue Divisional Officer