High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-30Writ petitions allowed. Ext.P5 orders set aside...

SABU K. ABEL v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.20033 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Viju Abraham
Judgment Date: 2023-03-30
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P5 orders are set aside for the petitions, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue orders converting land as per Ext.P1 without insisting on any fee for lands up to 25 cents. For lands above 25 cents up to one acre, a 10% levy of the fair value is to apply, consistent with Ext.P7 principles and not restricted by Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation status; Ext.P8 circular is held to be unsustainable in light of Baby’s case and related directions. In WP(C) No.18451/2022, the Court directs refund of Rs.2,00,430 remitted under Ext.P4(a) and requires the 2nd respondent to process such refunds, if needed, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All connected petitions are disposed accordingly, with orders to ensure uniform relief.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed. Ext.P5 orders set aside; land conversion up to 25 cents to be fee-free; lands above 25 cents up to one acre to be charged at 10% of fair value. Ext.P8 circular set aside in light of Baby and related judgments. In 18451/2022, refund of Rs.2,00,430 directed with repayment to be completed within three months. All connected petitions disposed accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sabu K. Abel
Abi K. Abel
Nisha W/o Shajith Musaliar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mini Civil Station, Mudavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha - 686 669
Village Officer, Kothamangalam - 686 666
Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kothamangalam - 686 666
District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
Revenue Divisional Officer, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram
Tahsildar (LR), Thiruvananthapuram, Taluk Office, Kottakkakam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Nandakumar
• Amrutha Sanjeev
• Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir
• Akash S. A. Megha
• Girish Kumar M.S.
• V. S. Varalekshmi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns three connected writ petitions challenging the fixation of fees for conversion of paddy land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and seeking relief from payment of such fees or refunds for amounts already paid. In WP(C) Nos. 20033 of 2021 and 20040 of 2021, Sabu K. Abel and Abi K. Abel, residents of Kothamangalam, sought conversion of paddy land without fee and assailed Ext.P7, which exempted up to 25 cents, while Ext.P8 circular allegedly restricted relief to post-25.02.2021 applications. They argued that the fixation of fee and the 100% enhancement of fair value were arbitrary and violated prior directions in WP(C) No. 20990 of 2018 and Ext.P6 (common interim order). In WP(C) No. 18451 of 2022, Nisha, wife of Shajith Musaliar, sought conversion of a 3.93 Are tract in Pangappara and claimed entitlement to refunds of amounts paid under the challenged circular, relying on the Division Bench decision in M.K. Baby v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others. The Court held Ext.P8 to be unsustainable, aligned with Baby’s case, and directed that conversions up to 25 cents be free of fee and that lands above 25 cents up to one acre incur a 10% levy of fair value. It also directed refunds to those who paid under Ext.P4 and set a timeframe for refund. The orders unify the fee regime and refunds across connected petitions, with emphasis on equity for small plots and earlier purchasers.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the fixation of fees under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, contending that Ext.P7’s exemption up to 25 cents and Ext.P8’s post-02-2021 restriction are arbitrary and violate the court’s prior directions (Ext.P6, WP20990/2018). They argue that conversion up to 25 cents should be without fee, and that the 100% increase in fair value should not defeat the constitutional goal of equitable access to land conversion, particularly for land purchased before 30.12.2017. They seek refund where payments were already made (as per Ext.P4) and a uniform application of relief across all connected petitions. The petitioners rely on the interim and subsequent judicial directions to grant relief under Ext.P7 and to set aside Ext.P8.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that fee fixation and relaxation measures are policy-driven to rationalise charges for Paddy Land conversion, and that Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 were issued to ensure uniform application of relief. They point to prior orders (Ext.P6) and the government’s administrative scheme, arguing that while relief should be available, it must be calibrated to the date of application and the nature of the land; they urge preservation of legitimate revenue interests and the need to avoid unwarranted exemptions that could undermine policy objectives.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M.K. Baby & others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others	(2021) 6 KLT 316	Positive	Cited to support the principle that the circular fixing a cut-off date for relief is liable to be set aside, reinforcing the petitioners’ case for wider or uniform relief.
W.P.(C) No. 3797/2020	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced in Appendix as part of the authorities discussed; not relied upon for ratio in the present decision.
W.P.(C) No. 5449/2019	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced to illustrate related judgments cited in the course of argument; not a binding ratio in this 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 SABU K. ABEL v. STATE OF KERALA 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 VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20033 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **SABU K. ABEL,AGED 51 YEARS S/O. K. E. ABEL, KATTANGANAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 691.** **BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS**| |---|---| ||**PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR P. O.,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 669.**| - **3 VILLAGE OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 666.** - **4 AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 666.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **30.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18451/2022, 20040/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 20040 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **ABI K.ABEL,AGED 55 YEARS S/O. K.E ABEL, KATTANGANAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM 686 691** **BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER** - **MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669** - **3 VILLAGE OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM 686 666** - **4 AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 666** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).20033/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18451 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **NISHA,W/O.SHAJITH MUSALIAR, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT RHYTHM, PARAKUNNU P.O., NAVAIKULAM, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603** **BY ADVS. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR AKASH S. A.MEGHA GIRISH KUMAR M S V.S.VARALEKSHMI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043** - **3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043** - **4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAKKAKAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695601** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).20033/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 4 ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** **................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos.20033 of 2021, 20040 of 2021 & 18451 of 2022 .................................................................** Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **W.P(C) No.20033 of 2021** Petitioner has applied for conversion of 4.05 Ares of paddy land in Survey No.1260/13 of Kothamangalam Village and Taluk in Ernakulam District as per Ext.P1 application dated 21.10.2020. As per Ext.P3 the fair value of the property has been fixed as Rs.75,000/- for 4.05 Ares and 4[th] respondent has also submitted Ext.P4 report dated 25.03.2021 stating that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and not included in the data bank. The 2[nd] respondent has now issued Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,100/- inclusive of 100% increase of fair value. The discrimination in fixation of fee under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.20990 of 2018 and connected cases before this Court and by Ext.P6 common order this Court had directed the Government to re-visit the fixation of fee to bring it to a WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 5 uniform rate. Consequently the Government has issued Ext.P7 order dated 25.02.2021 whereby conversion of the land has been done without any fee upto an extent of 25 cents of land and for lands above 25 cents upto one acre, 10% of the fair value has to be levied without considering the fact that the land lies in Panchayat, Municipality or Corporation. Subsequently the Government has issued Ext.P8 circular whereby the modification made with regard to the relaxation of fee as per Ext.P7 Government Order shall be applicable only to applications submitted on or after 25.02.2021. Petitioner submits that the abovesaid stipulation in Ext.P8 circular is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. ## **W.P(C) No.20040 of 2021** 2. Petitioner has applied for conversion of 9.52 Ares of paddy land in Survey No.1260/13 of Kothamangalam Village and Taluk in Ernakulam District as per Ext.P1 application dated 06.04.2019. As per Ext.P3 the fair value of the property has been fixed as Rs.2,25,000/- for 9.11 Ares and Rs.3,20,000/- for 404 sq.metres and the 4[th] respondent has also submitted Ext.P4 report dated 25.03.2021 stating that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and not included in the data bank. Thereafter 2[nd] respondent has issued Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.8,71,612/- inclusive of 100% increase of fair value. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment the WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 6 Government has issued Ext.P7 order uniforming the fees and granting exemption from fee for the lands having less than 25 cents. Subsequently the Government has issued Ext.P8 circular whereby the modification made with regard to the relaxation of fee as per Ext.P7 Government Order shall be applicable only to the applications submitted on or after 25.02.2021 and therefore the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 circular. ## **W.P.(C) No.18451 of 2022** 3. Petitioner along with her husband is in ownership and possession of a property having an extent of 3.93 Ares in re-survey No.593/32-2 of Pangappara Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and as per Ext.P1 application she has applied for conversion of the said land. By Ext.P2 the Agricultural Officer has reported that the property is already reclaimed and by Ext.P3 report the fair market value of the property was assessed at Rs.85,000/- per Are. The petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.2,00,430/- as per Ext.P4 order and pursuant to the same petitioner has paid the amount as is evident from Ext.P4(a) chalan. The contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled for conversion free of cost relying on the circular dated 10.12.2021 issued by the Government and therefore Ext.P7 representation requested for refund of the said amount was submitted by the petitioner. It is also contended that a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment reported in _**M.K.Baby & others v.**_ WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 7 ## _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (6) KLT 316)**_ set aside the circular dated 23.07.2021 prescribing a cut off date for extending the benefit of the earlier circular. Based on which the petitioner submits that she is entitled for refund of the amount already paid. Therefore the above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,430/-. Petitioner submits that in similar circumstances this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment has directed refund of the amount. As regards **W.P.(C) Nos.20033 of 2021** and **20040 of 2021** are concerned, these writ petitions are filed challenging Ext.P8 circular which has already been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court as per judgment in _**Baby**_ 's case supra (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.18451 of 2022). It is not in dispute that the property covered in these two writ petitions are below 25 cents and that the property has been purchased prior to 30.12.2017. Since Ext.P8 circular has already been set aside by this Court in _**Baby**_ 's case supra and that the properties have been purchased prior to 30.12.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Ext.P7 Government order. Therefore, the above two writ petitions are allowed setting aside Ext.P5 order with a further direction to the 2[nd] respondent to issue orders converting the nature of land applied for by the petitioners as per Ext.P1 without insisting for any fee. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 8 judgment. As regards **W.P.(C) No.18451 of 2022** is concerned, the petitioner has already remitted the amount as is evident from Ext.P4(a). The property was purchased by the petitioner on 30.05.2008 as is evident from Ext.P1 application and that the extent of land is less than 25 cents. If that be so, petitioner is also entitled for conversion of the land without payment of any fee. The circular fixing a cut off date for consideration of such application has been set aside by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment ( _**Baby**_ 's case supra) and this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment has directed refund of the amount already remitted by similarly situated persons. Therefore, in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 judgments, I am inclined to dispose the writ petition with a direction to 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P7 application requesting for refund of the amount already remitted as per Ext.P4(a) and refund the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM** **JUDGE** cks WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20033/2021** |PETITIONER|EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED| ||21.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE| ||APPLICANT.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED| ||09.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE REPORT| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 25.03.2021| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.08.2021| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF COMMON INTERIM ORDER| ||DATED 08.01.2021 IN WP(C) NO.20990 OF| ||2018.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1166/2021/RD| ||DATED 25.02.2021.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED| ||23.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20040/2021** |PETITIONER|EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 06-04-| ||2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 09-| ||11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE REPORT| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 25-03-2021| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25-08-2021| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF COMMON INTERIM ORDER| ||DATED 08-01-2021 IN W.P(C) NO. 26754| ||OF 2019| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 1166/2021/RD| ||DATED 25-02-2021| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 23-07-| ||2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18451/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||15.11.2017, SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND| ||BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING| ||COMMITTEE,| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT GIVEN| ||BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,| ||SREEKARIYAM ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED| ||28.05.2020 GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL| ||OFFICER, TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||07.10.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.KL 01| ||5248352202122M EVIDENCING THE| ||REMITTANCE OF RS.2,00,430/- AT THE| ||SUB TREASURY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,| ||PURSUANT TO EXT.P4 ORDER, BY THE| ||PETITIONER| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||03.11.2021 OF THE HUSBAND OF THE| ||PETITIONER| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1-4767/22| ||DATED 07.03.2022, OF TEH 4TH| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||17.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE HUSBAND| ||OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER TO| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||22.10.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN| ||W.P.(C)NO.3797/2020| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||05.04.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN| ||W.P.(C)NO.5449/2019| WP(C) No.20033 of 2021 & con. Cases 12