Allowed

Kavitha, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/21244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a demand for conversion charges under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act regarding land under 25 cents and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the Form 6 application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the demand in Ext.P3 order; directed respondent No. 1 to re-consider the Form 6 application within two months.

Kavitha, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21244 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KAVITHA, AGED 45 YEARS W/O SATHEESH KUMAR, MUNDANATT HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 679531 BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680125

¶10

2 TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, CHEMMANAD ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680125

¶11

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680121

¶12

BY SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 21244 OF 2024

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order demanding conversion charges in an application filed by the petitioner under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (for short, the Act and the Rules). The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the extent of land is less than 25 cents.

¶18

In view of the above submission, there could not have been any levy of conversion charges. Accordingly, the demand in Ext.P3 order is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner in Form 6 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶20

SD/-

¶21

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶22

DCS

¶23

WP(C) NO. 21244 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21244/2024

¶26

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶27

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.217/1/2006 DATED 24.01.2006 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.04.2024 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAVALASSERY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.11404/21 DATED NIL FROM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO SATHEESHKUMAR & KAVITHA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2022(6) KHC 50 (MARYSADAN APG PVT. LTD V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, EKM AND OTHERS)

Kavitha, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha, 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

C.C.Hamza Haji Vs Athavanad Grama Panchayath

K.R.Sivadasan Pillai Vs the District Collector

Shahul Hameed, Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Noushad K., Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Moonlight Premium Sands Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Secretary

Cicilyamma Mathew, Vs State of Kerala