W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024

W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -1- ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 880 OF 2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` ARUN R., AGED 45 YEARS INDHIRA SADAN COLLEGE ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661 ``` ``` BY ADVS. L.RAM MOHAN M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, MUVATTTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SR.GP.K.P.HARISH ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -2- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2024 The petitioner is in ownership and possession of two items of properties of 6.07 Ares each comprised in Sy. No. 184/1-7 of Muvattupuzha Village. The properties were assigned to the petitioner by his mother vide settlement deeds dated 26.02.2013 (Ext. P1) and 16.08.2017 (Ext. P2). The aforesaid properties are described as Nilam in the records whereas, according to the petitioner, the land was reclaimed many year back and is lying as garden land from time immemorial. With respect to the property covered by Ext. P2 document, the petitioner has obtained an order under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. With respect to the property covered by Ext. P1 document, the petitioner submitted an application on 13.08.2021, seeking to change the nature of the land. Thereupon, the respondent passed Ext. P5 order requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,42,800/- as conversion fee under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 10107 of W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -3- 2023 and this Court, by Ext. P6 judgment, set aside the order and directed the respondent to pass fresh order on the petitioner’s application under Form 6, bearing in mind the principles laid down in **Sumesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (3) KHC 431]** and **Baby v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316]** . In purported compliance of the above direction, the respondent passed Ext. P7 order, once again directing the petitioner to remit Rs. 2,42,800/- as conversion fee. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, insofar as the properties are purchased under two different documents prior to 30.12.2017, the respondent cannot demand conversion fee since the property with respect to which the Form 6 application is filed is less than 25 cents. It is submitted that, merely for the reason that the property belongs to a common order and is lying contiguously, there cannot be demand for conversion W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -4- fee on the premise that, when taken together the extent of the property will exceed 25 cents. It is pointed out that the issue stands covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector v. Dr. A. V. Sajeev** **[2023 (5) KHC 242]** . It is therefore prayed that Ext. P7 order ought to be set aside with a declaration that no conversion fee is payable by the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader referred to Ext. P4 Government Order and the reasons stated in Ext. P7 to contend that the rejection is in terms of Ext. P4 Government Order. According to the Government Pleader, the extent of the property in the petitioner’s possession being more than 25 cents, he is not entitled for exemption from payment of conversion fee. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question is no longer res integra in view of the decision in **Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector** (supra). Therein, while refusing to accept similar reasons stated for demanding conversion fees, the Division Bench held as under:- W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -5- “5. If a person, at the time of the Government order dated 25.2.2021 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 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.” Based on the said reasoning, it was held that, holders of the lands prior to 30.12.2017 under different documents would be W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -6- qualified for exemption as per the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 if the land under individual documents is less than 25 cents. The Division Bench also made it clear that the benefit of exemption will be available only to whose lands, even though lying contiguous, were purchased or obtained by different title deeds and less than 25 cents each. 6. In the case at hand also, though the properties are lying contiguous, its ownership devolved on the petitioner under two separate title deeds, both of which are prior to 30.12.2017. Moreover, with respect to one parcel of land, an order under Kerala Land Utilization Order has already been issued. Therefore, when the petitioner made a request for conversion of the other parcel of less than 25 cents, there cannot be any demand for conversion fee. In the result, Ext. P7 is set aside and the respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application seeking conversion, without insisting for payment of fee on the premise that, when taken together, the properties in the petitioner’s W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -7- possession is more than 25 cents. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed. **Sd/V. G. ARUN JUDGE** Eb W. P. (C) No. 880 of 2024 -8- ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 880/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO 918/1/B DATED 26/2/13 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO2761/17 DATED 16/08/17 ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDER NO.A3-9858/17/K,DIS(2) DATED 29/02/20 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10/12/21 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-14383/22 DATED 29/12/22 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/10/23 IN WRIT PETITION 9 CIVIL) NO 10107/23 Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3- 14383/22(1)DATED 16/12/23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ```