M.I. Andrews; Isaac Andrews; Anjana Pratheesh v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, Office of the Sub Collector, Cochin

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019(N)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 M.I.ANDREWS, AGED 72 YEARS, MUKKADAKKAL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT.** **2 ISAAC ANDREWS, MUKKADAKKAL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT. REPRESENTED BY HIS POA, M.I. ANDREWS, MUKKADAKKAL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT.** **3 ANJANA PRATHEESH, MUKKADAKKAL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT:** **SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, COCHIN 682001.** **BY ADV.** ## **SR.GP. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Fort Kochi, as per which they have been directed to remit the fees required under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short), asserting that such a condition could not have been incorporated in the said order, since it has been issued under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order). 2. The petitioners submits that going by the judgment of this Court in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer,**_ _**Muvattupuzha and another**_ [2019(4)KHC 400] no condition to remit the fees as required under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act could have been incorporated in ## **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 3** Ext.P6 order and therefore, that the same, to the extent to which it imposes such a condition, be set aside and the petitioners be allowed to use it for other purposes, including to approach the competent Tahsildar under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader Shri.Rajasekaran Nair, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that the petitioners cannot impugn Ext.P6, because same has been issued on their consent, which is evident from Exts.P7 and P8 documents produced by them. The learned Government Pleader submits that when one goes through Ext.P7, it becomes clear that the petitioners have voluntarily agreed to pay the amounts under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and that they have also sworn to an affidavit, namely Ext.P7, agreeing to do so. He further says that, as is evident ## **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 4** from Ext.P6, the application of the petitioners under the KLU Order appears to have been issued on 26/06/2018, which is much after Section 27A and its attendant provisions had been brought into effect in the Paddy Land Act. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed. **==> picture [317 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** submissions and have also examined the materials on record. **==> picture [352 x 44] intentionally omitted <==** ineluctable that it has been issued under the provisions of the KLU Order, but that the application of the petitioners have been shown to be dated 26/06/2018. However, it is also available on record that the petitioners' application under the KLU Order was made on 21/02/2016, as is evident from Ext.P1 and that the said ## **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 5** application was, in fact, directed to be considered by this Court through Ext.P2 judgment. I, therefore, asked the learned Government Pleader to place on record any material to show that Ext.P6 order had been issued not on Ext.P1 application but on a subsequent application dated 26/06/2018. However, no such information is forthcoming on the files of this case and I can only, therefore, assume that the reference made in Ext.P6, is to either a subsequent communication or to a clarification issued by the petitioners based on further correspondence between the parties. 6. I cannot, therefore, find favour with the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.P6 is irreproachable merely because the petitioners' application is after 30/12/2017, particularly, because as is clear from the said order, it has been ## **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 6** issued not under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act but under the KLU Order. 7. Obviously, therefore, going by the ratio in _**Geo Peter**_ (Supra), the condition requiring payment of amounts under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act cannot be found to be tenable and I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are entitled to relief in this writ petition. 8. That said, I am also cognizant of the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.P6 has been issued on the consent of the petitioners, which is perspicuous from Exts.P6 and P7. Even if this is so, I cannot find the action of the RDO to impose a condition which is not legally permissible, even on the consent of a party, since such consent may have been guided by wrong appreciation of law or by ignorance of **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 7** the provisions of the applicable statute. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6, to the extent to which the petitioners have been asked to remit the fees as per Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act; and leave them liberty to use the said order _de hors_ this condition for obtaining other appropriate and necessary orders, either by approaching the competent Tahasildar under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, or in such other manner as they may be advised. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** **MC/22/11/19** **WP(C).No.29734 OF 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29734/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS' APPLICATION DATED 21-02-2016 FOR CONVERSION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 0308-2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 25415 OF 2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LLMC REPORT DATED 21-11-2017 TOGETHER WITH ENCLOSURES. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S PROCEEDINGS DATED 18-012018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18-06-2018 PASSED IN W.P.(C). NO. 19829 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P6 RESPONDENT'S ORDER DATED 14-12-2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 19/09/2018, AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/09/2019 AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**