High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-12Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P4 quashed. Cou...

C. Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar (Land Records) and Village Officer, Thrissur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 34560 of 2023

Neutral Citation:2025 KER 24666

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2025-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of: Ext. P4 quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P3, examine the genuineness of the 13.11.1992 order passed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, verify the property’s identity, and pass a fresh decision within two months. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to exemption, the amount collected as conversion fee shall be refunded within three months from such order.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P4 quashed. Court directs the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext. P3 after verifying the 1992 Clause 6 order and its genuineness; two months given to decide; if exemption is found, refund within three months thereafter. Identity of property to be verified in this process; order to be passed accordingly within the specified timeframe.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C. Ramachandran

Respondents

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur
Tahsildar (Land Records), Thrissur
The Village Officer, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Asok Kumar K.P.
• Gentle C.D.

Counsels for Respondents

• Renjith S. (Special Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition filed by C. Ramachandran under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, challenging an Ext. P4 order demanding a conversion fee of Rs. 4,03,920 for a property—partly covered by a 1992 order allowing conversion of 25 cents out of the total 33 cents (approximately 0.33 acre). The petitioner had purchased a larger plot (Ext. P1) and, after obtaining the 1992 order, submitted Form 6 for the remaining extent of 1.53 acres. The core dispute is whether the 25 cents already permitted under the 1992 order can be counted for fee calculation or exempted entirely, given that the 25 cents formed part of the total 33 cents. The petitioner argues exemption should apply for the 25 cents already permitted, as per serial No.1 of the Rules, and relies on a settled Supreme Court principle as to limitations imposed by Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act on pre-2017 orders. The respondents maintain that the total extent is 33 cents and the exemption should not extend. The court frames the crucial issue around the interaction of pre-2017 orders with Section 27A and remits the matter for reconsideration, directing verification of Ext. 1992 order and possible refund if exemption is established, within specified timeframes. Ultimately, Ext. P4 is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Serial No.1 in Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland RulesSection 27A of the Paddy Land Act, 2008Paddy Land Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P4 demands a conversion fee for the entire extent, whereas serial No.1 in the Rules provides exemption for properties up to 25 cents. Ext. P1 records total extent as 33 cents; 25 cents was already permitted to be converted under a 1992 order under Clause 6, and that amount should not be taxed again under the Paddy Land Act regime. The remedy lies in recognizing that the 25 cents is exempt from fee calculation and that the remaining extent (1.53 acres) should be assessed accordingly. The petitioner also relies on a Supreme Court principle (as cited) that pre-2017 orders limiting Section 27A liability should shield the owner from 27A proceedings when such orders existed before the Act’s amendments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the total extent under Ext. P1 is 33 cents; exemption applies only to parcels under 25 cents, and thus the petitioner is not entitled to exemption for the full 25 cents. They argue Ext. P4 correctly demands the conversion fee and that the 25 cents already converted under an older order should be counted within the 33 cents for purposes of fee computation. The respondents rely on the statutory scheme and earlier orders to justify a duty to pay the fee unless the statutory exemption applies strictly.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
The Tahasildar v. Renjith George	2025 1 KHC 271	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that where a pre-2017 Clause 6 order existed, invoking Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act cannot impose liability to undergo 27A proceedings; thus 25 cents covered by the 1992 order should not be counted for conversion fee.
Moushmi Ann Jacob v. State of Kerala	2023(5)KHC 339	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P-11 cited judgment; included as material but not integrated into the core reasoning.
State of Kerala v Moushmi Ann Jacob	2023(5)KHC 337(DB)	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P-12 cited judgment; included as material but not central to the decision.
Writ Petition No. 4440 of 2023	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P-5 is a prior judgment of this court, cited as supporting material but not thoroughly analyzed in the judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C. Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar (Land Records) and Village Officer, Thrissur and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**2025:KER:24666** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 34560 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **C. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 73 YEARS,S/O PUZHANKARA RAMAN MENON, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 9261, JADE, SOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL, PURANATTUKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680553** **BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. GENTLE C.D.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003** - **2 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), THRISSUR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020** - **3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003** **Shri.Renjith.S, Spl.G.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 2 2025:KER:24666 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Ultilisation Order, 1967, before the 1[st] respondent, seeking conversion of property having an extent of 1.53 Ares. The said property formed part of the property of the petitioner purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 20.04.1992. The total extent of the property purchased as per Ext.P1 was 13.35 Ares. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation order and according to him the said application was allowed as per order dated 13.11.1992, permitting the petitioner to covert an extent of 25 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.187. Accordingly the petitioner had converted the land and the Form 6 application was submitted by the petitioner in respect of the remaining extent of the property i.e 1.53 Ares. Ext.P3 is the application. 2. After processing Ext.P3 application, the 1[st] respondent has now issued Ext.P4 notice requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,03,920/- as conversion fee for the property. According to the 1[st] respondent, as the total extent of the property W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:24666 covered as per Ext.P1 sale deed is 33 cents, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption as contemplated under serial No.1 in Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P4. 3. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 1[st] respondent wherein, the relief sought by the petitioner are opposed. They have incorporated contentions reiterating the stand taken by them. 4. I have heard Sri.Asok Kumar P Kodath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith S, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The only challenge raised in this writ petition pertains to the Ext.P4 order which is a demand of conversion fee. As per the serial No. 1 in the Schedule of the Rules, the property having an extent less than 25 cents is eligible to exemption from payment of the conversion fee. In this case, the petitioner applied for conversion only for 1.53 Ares and therefore going by the extent of the property mentioned in Form 6 application, he is entitled to W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:24666 exemption. However the same was rejected only because of the reason that, in the title deed of the petitioner which is Ext.P1, the total extent mentioned is 33 cents and therefore according to the 2[nd] respondent, he is not eligible for exemption. 6. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, out of the 33 cents of the property, an extent of 25 cents is already permitted to be converted by virtue of the order passed by the Sub Collector Thrissur, under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order as early as on 13.11.1992. The petitioner has specifically pleaded this aspect in the writ petition, and during the course of the hearing, a copy of the said order was also made available before this Court for perusal. If that be so, i.e, if 25 cents of the property is permitted to be converted, the same cannot be taken into account for the purpose of conversion fee. This is because, it is now settled by the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in **The Tahasildar v. Renjith George** **[2025 1 KHC 271]** that, in respect of properties where the owner thereof could obtain order under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order before 30.12.2017, the date on which the Section W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:24666 27A of the Paddy Land Act was introduced, he cannot be imposed with the liability to undergo the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 _(hereinafter referred to as the Paddy Land Act)_ . Therefore, as far as the 25 cents of property covered by the order dated 13.11.1992 issued under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of the proceeding under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and therefore the same cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the conversion fee. 7. Moreover, in this case as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 6 only in respect of 1.53 Ares, which is the property now remaining in his possession which is not covered as per the order of KLU order. Therefore, when considering Form 6 application and calculating the conversion fee, the same has to be reckoned only in respect of the extent of the property mentioned in Ext.P3. Since the 25 cents of property referred to in Ext.P1, is already granted with permission to be utilised for non-agricultural purposes as per W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:24666 clause 6 of the KLU Order, the same cannot be considered for fixing the conservation fee. Therefore the stand taken by the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P4 is not justifiable and hence the matter needs an interference. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4 with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the question of conversion fee after examining the genuineness of the order passed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order on 13.11.1992, a copy of which shall be produced by the petitioner before the said respondent. The identity of the said property shall also be verified and an order in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. After examining the same, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to exemption, the fee collected from the petitioner shall be refunded within a period of three months from the date of such order. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** rpk W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 7 2025:KER:24666 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34560/2023** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1832/92 DATED 20.04.1992 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLOTTED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL** **Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.01.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 566/2023 DATED 24.03.2023** **Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2023 DATED 10.02.2023 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL08017401420/2023 DATED 25.03.2023 Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 566/2023 DATED 10.04.2023 Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1528854/2023 DATED 18.05.2023 Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.09.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D71/2023/969673 DATED 06.10.2023 Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MOUSHMI ANN JACOB V. STATE OF KERALA [2023(5)KHC 339] (CITED JUDGMENT) DATED 06.02.2023** W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:24666 **Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA VS MOUSHMI ANN JACOB [2023(5)KHC 337(DB)] DATED 01.08.2023**