Dismissed

State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. Stephen

Kerala HC4 Oct 2023RP/889/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed. Court held that conversion fees are payable only for land exceeding 25 cents, not the entire extent. Addressed arguments regarding the interpretation of the notification and reliance on Baby M.K. case.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed. The writ appeal dismissed in the impugned order is maintained.

State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

RP No.889 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 12TH ASWINA, 1945

¶9

RP NO. 889 OF 2023

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WA 1131/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

PETITIONERS/APPELLANATS 1 TO 4 IN WA:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶13

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶14

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA P O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686575

¶15

3 THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAMDISTRICT., PIN - 686141

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJOOR MANJOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJOOR P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686603

¶17

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHAJITH

¶18

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.A.:

¶19

1 STEPHEN,

¶20

S/O. M U JAMES, MAKKILPUTHENPURAYIL, MANJOOR SOUTH P O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686603

¶21

2 FRANCY STEPHEN,

¶22

W/O. STEPHEN, MAKKILPUTHENPURAYIL, MANJOOR SOUTH P O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686603

¶23

BY ADV Ashok Shenoy B

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

30.09.2023, THE COURT ON 4/10/2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

RP No.889 of 2023

¶27

¶28

A. J. Desai, C.J. &

¶29

V.G. Arun, J.

¶30

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶31

R.P.No. 889 of 2023

¶32

Dated this the 4^th day of October 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

V.G.Arun,J

¶35

By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the writ appeal filed by the review petitioners was dismissed on finding that the direction in the impugned judgment was issued in terms of the statutory provision and the schedule of fees.

¶36

Adv.S.Renjith, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners contended that, while dismissing the writ appeal, this Court failed to consider the spirit of the notification dated 25/02/2021, granting exemption from conversion fees only for lands up to 25 cents in extent. According to the Government Pleader, the intention of issuing the notification is to support the persons intending to construct residential houses or small buildings in their property having an extent of less than 25 cents. It is contended that the above benefit of exemption is extended to persons owning large extents of land. Yet another

¶37

RP No.889 of 2023

¶38

¶39

contention urged is that the learned Single Judge as well as this Court committed a mistake by placing reliance on the decision in

¶40

Baby M.K. And Others v. District Collector, Ekm and Others

¶41

[2021 (6) KLT 316], since the consideration therein was confined to the claim for exemption with respect to plots having extent of 25 cents and below.

¶42

Advocate Joby Jacob Pulickekudy appearing for the respondents submitted that no ground for review is made out and in as much as the schedule of fees is unambiguously worded, the review petitioners cannot contend that the intention of the notification is something else.

¶43

The statutory provision under consideration is Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008, which enables the owners of unnotified lands to utilise their land for residential, commercial or other purposes. As per Section 27A(3), once the application for conversion is allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the applicant would be liable to pay fees at the rate prescribed. The prescription comes under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Rules 2008, as per which the fee for conversion is to be paid in accordance with the Schedule appended to the Rules. The bone of contention is with

¶44

RP No.889 of 2023

¶45

¶46

respect to the interpretation of the schedule of fees fixed as per the

¶47

Notification [G.O.(Ord.)No.1166/2021/Rev.Dept.] dated 25/2/2021.

¶48

Being contextually relevant, a rough translation of the notification is extracted hereunder;

¶49

Schedule

¶50

[See Rule 12 (9) ]

¶51

The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,2008

¶52

Sl.No. Extent Amount of fees to be remitted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Upto 25 cents free Note: This benefit is available to lands not exceeding 25 cents as on 30^th December 2017 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Above 25 cents and upto 10% of the fair value 1 Acre of the land ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Above 1 Acre 20% of the fair value of the land -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note : (1). If the building proposed to be constructed in the land sought to be converted is having plinth area above 3000 Sq.feet, fees at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. feet, in excess of 3000 Sq.feet, will also have to be remitted.

¶53

Note : (2). If the land lying as a single plot upto 30^th December 2017 was bifurcated into plots of 25 cents or lesser in extent, such plots will not get the above benefit and

¶54

fees will be collected treating those plots as a single plot.

¶55

A reading of the above notification leaves no room for doubt

¶56

RP No.889 of 2023 5

¶57

that the fee for conversion of land is payable only for lands in excess of 25 cents. Being so, the contention that, if the land exceeds 25 cents, conversion fees will have to be paid for the entire extent, including the 25 cents, can only be rejected. The learned Single Judge having taken that view, we found no reason to come to a different conclusion and hence, dismissed the writ appeal.

¶58

The contention that the decision in Baby (supra) was wrongly relied on cannot also be countenanced since , in Baby , the Division Bench held the Circular dated 23/07/2021, prescribing a cut off date for deciding the entitlement for fee exemption, as an attempt to interpret the Schedule to the Rules and therefore, impermissible in law. The learned Single Judge and this Court cited Baby only to repel the contention of the State based on the Circular dated 23/07/2021.

¶59

Hence, we find no merit in any of the grounds raised, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/-

¶60

A. J. Desai Chief Justice

Sd/-

V.G. Arun

Judge

dpk

State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. Stephen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. Stephen

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

G. Sakthidharan Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Chief Secretary

Anoop Antony Vs the Authorized Officer

Kerala State Tug of War Association Vs Union of India

The District Collector Vs Roby v J

State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Revenue Vs Moushmi Ann Jacob

Ambily Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala