Indian Pentecostal Church of God (IPC) Faith Centre, Kayamkulam v. District Collector, Alappuzha & Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD (IPC) FAITH CENTRE, KAYAMKULAM, ERUVA PO, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PASTOR (PRESIDENT):B. MONACHAN, PIN - 690502`** - **`2 PASTOR. B. MONACHAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O. BABY, (PRESIDENT), INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD (IPC), FAITH CENTRE, KAYAMKULAM, ERUVA PO, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690502`** - **`3 THANKACHEN V AGED 63 YEARS S/O. T.K. VARGHESE,(TREASURER, INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD (IPC), FAITH CENTRE, KAYAMKULAM), THUNDUVILA EDAPPURA, KURAMPALA SOUTH PO,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501`** - **`4 D. JOSEPH AGED 53 YEARS`** - **`S/O. DANIEL,(SECRETARY, INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD (IPC), FAITH CENTRE, KAYAMKULAM), CHERIYAPONMELIL VEEDU, PATHIYOORKALA, KEERIKADU PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690508`** ``` BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121`** - **`3 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALY TALUK, HARIPAD P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514`** - **`4 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502`** ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 5AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, MINI CIVIL STATION, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502 ``` ``` SMT. VINITHA.B.SR.G.P ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: _“(I) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P9 and quash the same._ _(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application and compute the fee on the basis of the notified fair value of the petitioner’s property as on 19.03.2020 and in the light of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Ajith Kumar Shenoy vs. RDO, Kottayam reported in 2020 (5) KLT 683 and Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala reported in 2020 (6) KLT 738 and change the description of the property mentioned in Exhibit P6 to dry land/purayidom in the relevant revenue records, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had submitted an application under Form 6 in respect of a total extent of 11.63 Ares of land situated in Re-Survey No.32/8 & 9 of Kayamkulam Village, Karthikappaly Taluk in Alappuzha District. It is submitted that the application has been considered and a notice issued ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` to the petitioners requiring the remittance of an amount of Rs.6,65,170/- as fees for the conversion. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fair value of the property as is evident from Ext.P7 at the time of submission of the application, that is on 19.03.2020, was only Rs.80,000/Are. It is further submitted that the building in the property was already in existence and had been constructed as early as in 2011 on the basis of the building permit issued in 2009 and that the charging of the fees for the proposed building is also completely without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. 4. It is further submitted that Ext.P8 circular governs the issue and that the Government itself had specifically directed that in case of applications made before 15.05.2020, only the fair value of the subject property as on the date of the application can be taken into account. It is further submitted that even so, going by the Government Order dated 25.02.2021, only the fair value of the subject property by which it exceeds 25 cents can be taken into account for computing the fee ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## payable. ## 5. A statement has been placed on record by the 2[nd] respondent. It is stated therein as follows: _“3. Since the Government of Kerala as per REVP1/313/2021-REV dated 10.12.2021 unified the fee as 10% of fairvalue of similar dryland for changing classification of land to 1 acre irrespective of Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation, the fee to the land under question was recalculated in consonance with the Government Order and informed the petitioner to remit the recalculated fee of Rs.4,54,085/- (Fee for land Rs.2,11,085/- and fee for building Rs.2,43,000/-)”_ It is submitted that the petitioners has been required to remit the above amount as fees. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the application submitted by the petitioners was, admittedly, one submitted in March 2020 before the definition of fair value in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 underwent an amendment. Therefore, going by the provisions of the Act as it stood on the date of the petitioners’ application as well as the judicial pronouncements of this Court, the fair value which could have been taken into account for the purpose of computation of fee is only the fair ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` value of the subject property and not of adjacent dryland. Moreover, the enhancements, if any, in the fair value could also not have been taken into account in the light of Ext.P8 circular. Moreover, the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 also specifies that the rate of fee to be paid with reference to is 10% of the extend of property by which it exceeds 25 cents, if the extend of the property is below 1 acre. 7. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the entire calculation made in the impugned notice as well as shown in the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent is erroneous and does not have the authority of law. In the result, Ext.P9 notice is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to take specific note of the contention raised by the petitioners that the building in the property was already in existence and that no amount is therefore liable to be paid in respect of the building. The contentions of the petitioners based on Ext.P8 as well as the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 shall also be taken note and the fee shall be refixed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 Act, the Rules made thereunder, the Fee Schedule appended thereto as well as the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 and Ext.P8. ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` Appropriate orders shall be passed refixing the fee and considering the application made by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` NP ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4398 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4398/2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:`** |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT`**| |---|---| ||**`NO.KL04040901200/2022 DATED 08.02.2022 ISSUED`**| ||**`FROM KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE WITH RESPECT`**| ||**`TO THE SAID PROPERTY`**| |**`Exhibit P1(a)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT`**| ||**`NO.KL04040901191/2022 DATED 08.02.2022 ISSUED`**| ||**`FROM KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE WITH RESPECT`**| ||**`TO THE SAID PROPERTY`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) OF THE ABOVE SAID`**| ||**`FAITH CENTRE BUILDING AND PROPERTY`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. BA`**| ||**`90/07-08 DATED 29.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY TO THE`**| ||**`DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, ALAPPUZHA REGARDING`**| ||**`THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN THE ABOVE-`**| ||**`MENTIONED PROPERTY`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3/5554/08/D.DIS`**| ||**`DATED 24.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN`**| ||**`PLANNER, GRANTING LAYOUT APPROVAL FOR THE`**| ||**`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN ABOVE MENTIONED`**| ||**`PROPERTY`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 06.08.2009`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY IN THE`**| ||**`NAME OF 2ND PETITIONER AND OTHERS`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO ALONG`**| ||**`WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 19.03.2020`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.`**| ||**`GO(P) NO. 47/2020/ TAXES, FIXING THE FAIR`**| ||**`VALUE FOR PROPERTY IN RE-SURVEY NO.32 OF`**| ||**`KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. REV-`**| ||**`P1/219/2020-REV DATED 20.02.2021 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2021`**| ||**`BEARING FILE NO. A1-523/2020 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT`**| ## **`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL`**