Allowed

T.H Salim v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi

Kerala HC14 Nov 2023WP(C)/21581/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside an order demanding conversion fee for a petitioner owning land purchased before the 2008 Act. Following the dictum in Sumesh U., the Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application without insisting on fee payment, ruling within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside; 1st respondent directed to reconsider Form-6 application without fee insistence within six weeks.

T.H Salim Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21581 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.H SALIM AGED 58 YEARS S/O. M.M HYDROSS, THEMPADATH HOUSE, TASS ROAD, ALUVA, ALUVA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683101

¶8

BY ADVS. WINSTON K.V C.SREEJITH P.S.HARIHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, FORT KOCHI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682001

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MUPPATHADAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683110

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP - RIYAL DEVASSY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 21581 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, wherein, fee has been demanded towards conversion.

¶19

The petitioner submits that he and two others are the absolute owner in possession of 9.28 Ares of land (22.92 cents) comprised in Survey No.178/5B-1, Kadungalloor Village, Paravoor Taluk, Ernakulam District. The specific case of the petitioner is that the said property has been purchased as per Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds, which were prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008. The property is categorised as 'Purayidom' in the above sale deeds.

¶20

On 22.01.2017, a partition deed was executed as per Ext.P4. The petitioner contended that his 9.28 Ares of land is not included in the data bank and that the Government has exempted the fee for the extent of land falls below 25 cents. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in Form-6 . Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.36109/2022, Ext.P6 order has been issued, where the petitioner has directed to remit conversion fee as a pre-condition for allowing Ext.P5 application. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 21581 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

The petitioner relying on the judgment in Sumesh U. and another v Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad and others [ILR 2023 (2) KER 446] and submits that this issue is covered by the dictum laid down by this Court in the aforementioned judgment and he specifically relies on paragraph No.5 of the judgment, which is extracted below:

¶24

“A reading of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Schedule as well as Ext.R3(a) Government Order would make it amply clear that the exemption would be lost only in case there is a transaction after 30.12.2017 by which, a property having a larger extent is fragmented to make the individual parcels of land of an extent of less than 25 cents. The contention that any property purchased after December, 2017 would loss the exemption even when the said property was less than 25 cents in extent even prior to such transaction cannot be accepted in view of the specific language of the Act, the Rule and the Schedule. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the statement are completely untenable. The communications issued, which do not have the force of law, cannot stand in the way of consideration of applications in accordance with law. “

¶25

In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the aforesaid judgment, especially for the reason that the petitioner submits that the property has been purchased even prior to the aforementioned Act came into force.

¶26

Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-6 in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. If the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment, the 1^st respondent

¶27

WP(C) NO. 21581 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

shall pass orders on Form-6 application without insisting on payment of fee. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 21581 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21581/2023

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit-P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT NO.KL07031108828/2021 DATED 05.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.6569/1/2005 OF SRO, ALANGAD DATED 22.11.2005.
Exhibit-P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.6570/1/2005 OF SRO, ALANGAD DATED 22.11.2005.
Exhibit-P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NO.900/1/2017 OF SRO, PARAVOOR DATED 25.03.2017.
Exhibit-P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.09.2021.
Exhibit-P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.3538/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT .

T.H Salim v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.H Salim v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi

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

Sheeba, Vs State of Kerala

Sajith Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Jobi., Vs the District Collector.

Shibu Jacob and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

P. v. Bava Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Raji.R Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad