Lillykutty v. State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and others (W.P.(C) No. 152 of 2022)

WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** LILLYKUTTY AGED 53 YEARS W/O. KUNJU NAINAN, ANITHA BHAVAN, MAVILA, AREEPLACHI P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691333. BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691013. 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691305. 4 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691305. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ANCHAL, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691305. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.152 of 2022** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : _“i. call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 from the 3rd respondent and to quash the same to the extend it fixed Rs.1,56,244/- by way of fees as per section 27A (1) Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (Kerala) 2008 (Amendment Act, 2018) fixed by the 3rd respondent based on the fair value of the land in Re-Sy. No.312/2 instead of the land in Re-Sy. No.59/6 in Block No. 33 of Anchal village which is the subject matter of Exhibit P2 -application by the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;_ _ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 3rd respondent to fix the fees for change of user of 19.13 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No.59/6 in Block No. 33 of Anchal Village based on the fair value of the said land as on the date of Exhibit P2 -application within a time limit as deem fit to by this Hon'ble Court;_ _iii. declare that petitioner is not liable to remit fees as required by the 3rd respondent in Exhibit P9 based on the fair value of the land in respect of land in Re-Sy. No. 312/2 and liable to pay only as per the fair value of the land in ReSy. No.59/6 in Block No.33 of Anchal village as on the date of Exhibit P2application i.e., 23.12.2019;_ WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 3 _iv. allow such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court find deem fit to in the nature and circumstances of the case;_ _and_ _v. with the cost of the petitioner; [SIC]_ 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application under Sec.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 before the 3[rd] respondent on 23.12.2019 by remitting the required fee of Rs.1000/- on 16.12.2019. The 3[rd] respondent obtained Ext.P3 report form the Village Officer and report from the Agricultural Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter without allowing Ext.P2, the 3[rd] respondent issued notice to the petitioner for the construction of a water conservation pond in 2.1 ares of land set apart for the said purpose. Though the petitioner submitted reply stating that as per the report of the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer, property is earmarked for water conservation measures, it is the case of the petitioner that the 3[rd] respondent did not consider the application and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C.) No. 4986/2021 before this Court and this Court as per judgment dated 26.2.2021 directed the 3[rd] respondent to consider the application within a period of WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 4 three months. Pursuant to that, the respondent heard the petitioner on 19.4.2021. But, it is the case of the petitioner that the 3[rd] respondent did not pass any order. So the petitioner filed contempt case before this Court and after the receipt of notice in that contempt case, the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P4 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,44,340/- for changing the user of 19.13 ares of land situated in Anchal Grama Panchayat, 20% of the fair value of another land and adding 200% increase to the said fair value based on GO(P) No. 47/20/TD dated 31.3.2020. According to the petitioner, the fair value of the land sought to be changed by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 is Rs.5445/- per Are. So the petitioner filed appeal before the 2[nd] respondent as per Sec.27B of the Act on 17.9.2021 and filed W.P.(C.) No. 21334/2021 before this Court. This Court directed the 2[nd] respondent to consider the appeal. The 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P8 proceedings directing the 3[rd] respondent to inform the petitioner about the fees based on the fair value of the land as on the date of application. But, it is the case of the petitioner WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 5 that 3[rd] respondent again based on the fair value of another land fixed the fees, virtually with a view to over reach the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Hence, this writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P9 so far as it demands Rs.1,56,244/- from the petitioner for change of user of the land as per Ext.P2 application based on the fair value of another land which is absolutely unconnected with the land of the petitioner in Ext.P2 and for other consequential reliefs. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7 judgment. _“4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also and in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent with a statutory appeal, I am of the opinion that the said appeal is liable to be considered, in accordance with law._ 5. _There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner and to consider and dispose of the same specifically referring to the decisions of this Court in Vimal Vincent (Dr) Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Irinjalakkuda and others (2020 (1) KHC 123) and Ajith Kumar Shenoy and anther Vs. Revenue_ WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 6 _Divisional Officer /Sub Collector, Kottayam and others (2021 (1) KHC SN 10). Orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner through any appropriate means including video conferencing within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly._ 5. This Court clearly directed that the 2[nd] respondent to take up the appeal preferred by the petitioner and to consider and dispose of the same specifically referring to the decision of this Court in _**Vimal Vincent (Dr.)** v._ _**Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2020 (1) KHC 123]. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order is passed by the appellate authority. As per Ext.P9, the land value of another land is relied which is totally against the directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment. In _**Vimal Vincent's**_ case (supra), this Court considered the point in detail. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : _“11. It, therefore, becomes indubitably manifest from the above that the fee under S.27A of the Paddy Land Act can be quantified only on the basis of the Fair Value of the specific property involved, as fixed and notified under S.28A of the Kerala Stamp Act and in no other manner; and consequently, I cannot find_ WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 7 _favour with Ext.P7 proceedings of the RDO, which adopts the Fair Value of a similarly placed property but not the Fair Value of the property in question, even though the same has been concededly notified under the Kerala Stamp Act, as is evident from Exts.P5 and P6._ _12. In the afore forensic background, it is unnecessary to further say that the contention of the learned Government Pleader-that on grant of permission under S.27A of the Paddy Land Act, the value of the property would rise augmentally and therefore, that its notified Fair Value cannot be adopted to assess the fee payable under the said Section-would garner no legal force. This is luculent because, when the provisions of law mandate that only the notified Fair Value be reckoned for such purpose, it is only that which can be taken into account and no other. In such perspective, even the argument that there was a mistake in notifying the value of the property under S.28A of the Kerala Stamp Act would be of no avail, since nothing had prevented the competent Authorities under the said Act in rectifying such mistake, even assuming there was any such, through due process; but the RDO cannot be heard to say unilaterally that he deems such notification to be in error and then to fix the value as he pleases. This is contrary to law and opposed to the delineated perimeters of the jurisdiction of the said Authority under the Paddy Land Act Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7, and consequently, direct the RDO and such other competent Authorities to quantify the fee payable by the petitioner under S.27A of the Paddy Land Act in terms of the observations above and to intimate him_ WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 8 _appropriately within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the petitioner will be liable to pay the same forthwith, so as to obtain final orders under the said section from the RDO, which shall be issued without any further delay thereafter. This writ petition is thus ordered.”_ 6. In the light of the same, according to me, Ext.P9 is unsustainable and against the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, Ext.P9 has to be set aside. The 3[rd] respondent has to reconsider the matter, in the light of the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner : ## 1) Ext.P9 is set aside 2) The 3[rd] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the specific directions in Ext. P7 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. SD/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2022 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 152/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A9-| ||10078/13 DATED 26.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE| ||SECRETARY OF ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER IN FORM VII UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE| ||CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES,| ||2008 DATED 23.12.2019.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.7/20 DATED 1.2.2020 OF| ||THE 5TH RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B-1125/20 DATED| ||18.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE CERTIFICATE DATED| ||15.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE| ||3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED| ||17.9.2021.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.2021, IN| ||WP(C) NO.21334/2021.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2021.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B 1125/20 DATED| ||20.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER| |RESPONDENT ANNEXURES|| |ANNEXURE R3( a)|True copy of the circular no.Rev-P1/248/2019-| ||REV DATED 17.2.2020|