High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; Exts. P8 and P9 part...

Mohamad Iqbal.K.M v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Kalloor Thekkumuri Village; Village Officer, Kalloor Thekkumuri; Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date
2024-03-07
Court Decision / Holding
Exts. P8 and P9 are set aside to the extent of demanding conversion fees for the change of nature of land. The 1st respondent/RDO is directed to pass fresh orders on Exts. P6 and P7 without insisting on conversion fees, within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of; Exts. P8 and P9 partially set aside; direction to consider Exts. P6 and P7 without conversion fees; two-month deadline for the RDO to pass fresh orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mohamad Iqbal.K.M

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Irinjalakuda, Kerala
  • Village Officer, Kalloor Thekkumuri Village Office, Annamanada, Thrissur District
  • Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.A. Vaheeda Babu
  • • Babu Karukapadath
  • • P.U. Vinod Kumar Arya
  • • Raghunath Karukapadath
  • • Wazim Babu
  • • P. Lakshmi
  • • Ayesha E.M.
  • • Shifana Kaise
  • • Dennis Biju

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Mohamad Iqbal.K.M, owns two parcels of land in Kalloore Thekkumuri Village, Chalakkudy taluk: a 10-cent residential plot (Sy. No. 463/1-1) and a 15.98-cent garden plot (Sy. No. 463/3-3). He filed Form-6 applications under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2008, seeking change of land use for the two properties. The 1st respondent granted the applications but directed payment of conversion fees, calculated at 10% of fair value, via Exts. P8 and P9. The petitioner challenges these orders on the ground that under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and its schedule, no fee is payable for conversion up to 25 cents, and further that the lands were acquired before 30.12.2017, making him eligible for exemption. The court relies on Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev (2023(4) KLT 331), which held that exemption may apply to holdings consisting of separate documents if the land per document is within 25 cents and purchases were prior to 30.12.2017. Applying that principle, the court holds that the petitioner is not liable to pay conversion fees for the change of nature and sets aside Exts. P8 and P9 to that extent. It directs the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on Exts. P6 and P7 without insisting on conversion fees within two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Rules, 2008 (as amended)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that, under Section 27A and the Government Order dated 25.02.2021, conversion fees are not payable for up to 25 cents of land and, where separate title deeds pre-30.12.2017, exemption applies per holding. Since Exts. P1 and P2 lie under different title deeds and were obtained before 30.12.2017, the petitioner asserts eligibility for exemption and seeks quashing of Exts. P8 and P9 to the extent of demand for conversion fees. The applicant relies on the decision in Sajeev (2023(4) KLT 331) to argue that exemption is available per holding evidenced by separate deeds.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the conversion fee is payable for change of land use under the Rules and the Government Order; Exts. P8 and P9 reflect such liability, and the government instruments should be read in light of the statutory scheme. The respondents maintain the need to compel compliance with the fee regime unless the specific exemptions described by the Sajeev ruling are satisfied.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev2023 (4) KLT 331PositiveThe judgment is cited as a controlling authority, laying down that exemptions under the Government Order apply to holdings less than or equal to 25 cents and held via separate documents purchased prior to 30.12.2017; the present court applies this principle.

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 Mohamad Iqbal.K.M v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Kalloor Thekkumuri Village; Village Officer, Kalloor Thekkumuri; Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **MOHAMAD IQBAL.K.M, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. LATE K.P.MOHAMAD, KARUPPAMVEETTIL , MAMBRA P.O,WEST KORATTY, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680308** **BY ADVS. M.A.VAHEEDA BABU BABU KARUKAPADATH P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI AYSHA E.M. SHIFANA KAISE DENNIS BIJU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA,, PIN - 680125 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLOOR THEKKUMURI VILLAGE OFFICE, ANNAMANADA THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680741 3 THE TAHSILDAR 3RD FLOOR, MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680307** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of 10 cents of residential property situated in Sy.No.463/1-1 of Kalloor Theekumuri Village in Chalakkudy Taluk, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. He also owns a parcel of garden land having an extent of 15.98 cents in Sy.No.463/3-3 of the same village, as per Ext.P2 partition deed. The properties are situated on either side of Valoor west – Koratty PWD road. The petitioner submitted Exts.P6 and P7 applications in Form-6 under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules 2008) with regard to the respective properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The 1[st] respondent allowed the said applications vide **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 3 :** Exts.P8 and P9, however directing the petitioner to remit the conversion fee referred to therein, being 10% of the fair value of the properties. The petitioner impugns Exts.P8 and P9 on the ground that the total extent of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 is less than 25 cents and the properties have been obtained by him prior to 30.12.2017 and he is not liable to remit any conversion fee. 2. As Section 27A of the Kerala per Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act, 2008) and the Schedule of fee thereto, no fees is payable for conversion up to 25 cents. In **Revenue Divisional Officer** _v._ **Dr.A.V.Sajeev** [2023 (4) KLT331], this Court held that if a person, at the time of the Government **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 4 :** Order dated 25.02.2021, has a different holding in the State in a small plot extending to more than 25 cents of land, he would be entitled to the benefit of the first Clause for exemption, if the land as per the holding covered by different documents is less than 25 cents. Paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as follows: “5. If a person, at the time of the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 has a different holding in the State in a small plot extending to more than 25 cents of land, they would be entitled to the benefit of the first Clause for exemption if the land as per the holding covered by different documents is less than 25 cents. The holding as per the exemption has to be understood, to be qualified with reference to the title deeds of the party, the holder of the land. Though in practice, the property may lie contiguous and remain as a ## **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 5 :** single plot, the benefit of exemption would be available to all such persons who hold the land by separate documents and the extent of land is 25 cents or less provided those purchases were prior to 30.12.2017. We also make it clear that those who are holding land beyond 25 cents of land as on 30.12.2017, based on a single title, will not be entitled for such benefit. The only possible interpretation, according to us, is that holding of the land has to be understood with the title deed of the parties concerned, who claimed exemption. If the title deed of such holder of land indicates that the land is less than 25 cents of land, the holding covered by the title deed would be entitled for exemption of the fees. This is so also discernible from the circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department on 10.12.2021. 6. In the light of the above, we hold as follows: The holders of the land ## **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 6 :** who purchased the land prior to 30.12.2017 by different documents and the land is less than 25 cents of land, that land would be qualified for exemption as per the Government Order dated 25.02.2021. We make it clear that the benefit of exemption is only to such holders of the land whose land even though lying contiguous but purchased or obtained by different title deeds, not having more than 25 cents, alone would be entitled to the benefit of exemption.” 3. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above decision and in the light of the provisions contained in Section 27A of the Act, 2008, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to pay any conversion fees for change of nature of land as ordered in Exts.P8 and P9. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P9 to that extent are set **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 7 :** aside. There will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent/RDO to pass further orders on Exts.P6 and P7 without insisting for conversion fees. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 8 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 07/12/1995 OF SRO ANNAMANADA BY WHICH THE PETITIONER PURCHASED 4.05 ARES (10 CENTS) OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.463/1-1 OF KALLOOR THEKKUMURI VILLAGE OF CHALAKKUDY TALUK,** - **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 20/12/2005 BY WHICH THE PETITIONER OBTAINED AN EXTENT OF 6.47ARES (15.98 CENTS) OF GARDEN LAND SITUATED IN SURVEY NO. 463/3-3 OF KALLOOR THEKKUMURI VILLAGE OF CHALAKKUDY TALUK (SCHEDULE B THEREIN),** - **Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/08/2022 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER COVERED BY EXHIBITS P1 AND P2,** - **Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 05/02/1997, ISSUED BY THE ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,** - **Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17/10/2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P2** - **Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/10/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 6 UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND & WET LAND RULES, 2008 AS AMENDED, (WITHOUT ANNEXURES), WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1 ALONG WITH ITS CHALLAN RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FEE** **Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/10/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 6 UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE KERALA** **WP(C) NO. 7442 OF 2024 : 9 :** **CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND & WET LAND RULES, 2008 AS AMENDED, (WITHOUT ANNEXURES), WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER COVERED BY EXHIBIT P2, ALONG WITH ITS CHALLAN RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FEE** **Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMIT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 44,550/- (RUPEES FORTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY) FOR ALLOWING CHANGE OF NATURE OF THE LAND MEASURING 4.05 ARES/10 CENTS COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1** **Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTICE DATED 30/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMIT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,480/- (ONE LAKH SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY) FOR ALLOWING CHANGE OF NATURE OF THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER MEASURING 6.05 ARES/14.94 CENTS AS EVIDENCED BY EXHIBIT P5**