Allowed

Jamal , v. the Revenue Devisional Officer

Kerala HC22 Nov 2023WP(C)/10811/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 10811 of 2023, the Court set aside a conversion fee notice issued without considering the Village Officer's valuation report and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application considering the report and the principle in Moushmi Ann Jacob's case.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 (conversion fee notice) set aside; consequential direction to reconsider application considering Ext.P5 report; fresh orders within two months.

Jamal , Vs the Revenue Devisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JAMAL ,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O ISMAIL, MADATHIPARAMBL HOUSE, EDAPALLY SOUTH
VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR THALUK, VENNALA, PIN - 682028

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.SAREENA GEORGE
ASHEETA NELSON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER , FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, PIN - 682001

¶10

2 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR THALUK,TALUK OFFICE, PIN - 682011

¶11

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682028

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GOVERNMENT PLEADER -SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C) No.10811 of 2023

¶16

¶17

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

¶18

W.P. (C).No.10811 of 2023

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of

¶22

Rs.34,80,000/- as conversion fee. The petitioner submits that Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer would reveal that he

¶23

has fixed the land value as Rs.12,00,000/- per Are. The petitioner submits that Ext.P6 has been issued without looking into Ext.P5 report submitted by the Village Officer. The petitioner has also a further claim that for the first 25 cents he is not liable to pay any conversion fee as held by this Court in State of Kerala and others v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [2023 (4)KLT 704].

¶24

A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the same has been issued without considering Ext.P5 report submitted by the Village Officer. Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside with a

¶25

¶26

W.P(C) No.10811 of 2023

¶27

consequential direction to the first respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer. Further claim of the petitioner based on the judgment in Moushmi Ann Jacob’s case (supra) shall also be duly considered while considering the matter as directed above. Fresh orders in this regard shall be passed within a outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶28

SD/-

¶29

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶30

rmm/22/11/2023

¶31

W.P(C) No.10811 of 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10811/2023

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO
3016/2013 DATED 19-8-2013 OF EDAPALLY
S.R.O
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
27-7-2022 ISSUED BY EDAPALLY SOUTH
VILLAGE
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY FORM 6 DATED 9-3-2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO .K2-
3008/21/K-DIS DATED 3-10-22 IN FORM 5
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF VILLAGE
OFFICER BEARING NO 39/22 DATED
1/10/22 IN FORM 6
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO
RDOCHN/K-2/3008/2021 DATED 27/2/2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF LOCATION PLAN
CERTIFICATE BEARING NO 488/23 DATED
17/3/23 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF
GO(P) NO 47/2020/TD DATED 31/3/20
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
ON 30/3/22 AS SRO NO 305/2022

Jamal , v. the Revenue Devisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamal , v. the Revenue Devisional Officer

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

T.K.Seetharaman Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Binu K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Cleetus Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi

Moideen K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Nafeesa .K Vs State of Kerala

Green Meadows Holiday Resorts Private Limited Vs the Thahsildar(Lr)