High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-19Disposed of by common judgment (disposed of wit...

WP(C) Nos. 22874 & 22882 of 2021: P.P. Ajith S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran; P.P. Ashok S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran (and his heirs Sudha Ashok, Nita Ashok, Smitha Ashok) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; Tahsildar, Alathur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 22874 & 22882 of 2021

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date: 2023-12-19
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. The notices issued under Exts.P11–P13 (WP 22882) and Ext.P9 (WP 22874) are set aside. The first respondent (RDO) is directed to reconsider the claim for refixation of the fair value, taking into account the documents/judgments produced by the petitioners (notably Ext. P23 sketch) and to hear the petitioners, with a decision within two months from receipt of the judgment. The court emphasizes adherence to the relevant statutory framework and directs a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by common judgment (disposed of with directions to reconsider fair value and provide hearing within two months)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.P. Ashok S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran
Sudha Ashok
Nita Ashok
Smitha Ashok
P.P. Ajith S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Palakkad P.O., Palakkad District-678001
Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Alathur P.O., Palakkad District-678706

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.R. Venkatesh
• G. Keerthivas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Syamathak B.S., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge conversion-fee orders issued under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, for unnotified lands in Palakkad. The original petitioner in WP(C) No.22882, now represented by his legal heirs, was removed from the data bank, prompting applications under Sec.27A. Notices issued by the Sub Collector directed payment of substantial conversion fees, calculated by fixing land value at Rs. 4 lakh per Are, based on the concept of “fair value” defined in Sec. 2(viA) of the Act, read with Sec. 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and Rule 12(9) of the Rules, 2008. Petitioners allege that fair value must reflect the adjacent notified garden land or the fair value fixed for similar and similarly situated land, rather than a distant property with commercial significance. They rely on Vimal Vincent v. RDO to argue that, under a conjoint reading of Sec.27A and Rule 12(9), conversion fee should be determined solely on the fair value fixed under Sec.28A. Respondents contend that the statutory definition governs and the authorities’ fixation reflects appropriate valuation. The court disposed of both petitions by common judgment, setting aside the earlier notices and directing the RDO to reconsider the fair value, allowing documents and notes, and affording a hearing within two months, with a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27AKerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 - Rule 12(9)Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 2(viA) (definition of ‘fair value’)Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 - Section 28A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the ‘fair value’ under Section 2(viA) must be determined as the fair value of garden land adjacent to the unnotified land for which fair value is fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, or, in the absence of such fixation, the fair value fixed for similar and similarly situated garden land. They rely on the judgment in Vimal Vincent v. RDO to urge that under a conjoint reading of Section 27A and Rule 12(9), the conversion fee must be computed solely on the fair value fixed under Section 28A, not on the value of distant or differently situated properties. They also argue that the value fixation based on a commercially important parcel far from the petitioners’ land is arbitrary and unjust, and seek consideration of Ext.P23 sketch and other documents to support their case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the fair value is governed by the statutory definition in Section 2(viA) and the value fixed by the authorities represents adjacent land values or comparable garden land. They rely on the statutory framework (Sec. 27A, Rule 12(9), and Sec. 28A) to justify the fixation of Rs. 4 lakh per Are and argue that fixation should reflect the nearby, notified land values, with due consideration to market and statutory guidelines. They contend that the reliance on Vimal Vincent is for interpretation rather than to overturn the legitimate statutory approach, and that the petitioners’ objections require reassessment within legal bounds.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vimal Vincent v. RDO	2020 (1) KLT 145	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the interpretation of ‘fair value’ under Sec.27A read with Rule 12(9), but the judgment does not adopt or overrule its reasoning; it remands for reconsideration in light of legal standards.

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 WP(C) Nos. 22874 & 22882 of 2021: P.P. Ajith S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran; P.P. Ashok S/o Late P.A. Parameswaran (and his heirs Sudha Ashok, Nita Ashok, Smitha Ashok) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; Tahsildar, Alathur 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** ## **TUESDAY,THE 19[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO.22882 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** 1 P.P.ASHOK S/O.LATE P.A.PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANGAM AMSOM AND DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. **: DIED** ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 : 2 SUDHA ASHOK W/O P.P.ASHOK, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANK ROAD,PUTHIYANGAM AMSOM&DESOM ,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678541 3 NITA ASHOK D/O.LATE P.P.ASHOK, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANGAM AMSOM & DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678541 4 SMITHA ASHOK D/O.P.P.ASHOK, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANGAM AMSOM & DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541. IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT29.9.2023 IN I.A.NO.2/2023 BY ADVS.P.R.VENKATESH ASHA P.KURIAKOSE G.KEERTHIVAS LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. 2 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKAKD DISTRICT-678706. BY ADV.SRI.SYAMANTHAK.B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).22874/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 22874 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 P.P.AJITH S/O.LATE P.A.PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANGAM AMSOM AND DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678541 BY ADVS. P.R.VENKATESH G.KEERTHIVAS ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. 2 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKAKD DISTRICT-678706. BY ADV.SRI.SYAMANTHAK.B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).22882/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 3 **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** -------------------------------------- WP(C)Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 ---------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2023_ ## **JUDGMENT** Since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions are similar, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The facts in W.P.(C) No.22882 of 2021 will be adverted to in this judgment and the facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows : 2. The original petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22882 of 2021 since deceased, is represented by his legal heirs. The property of the original petitioner was removed from the data bank and thereupon, the applications under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, were submitted as Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No.7337 of 2021, whereby the applications submitted by him and his brother were directed to be disposed of within a time limit, three notices (Exts.P11, P12 and P13) were issued by the Sub Collector, Palakkad, whereby the petitioners were directed to remit an amount of Rs.11,33,600/-, Rs.15,86,400/- and Rs.29,46,400/- respectively as conversion W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 4 fee. To arrive at the said amount, the land value has fixed at Rs.4 lakh per Are. In W.P.(C) No.22874 of 2021 on the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P9 notice was issued by the Sub Collector, Palakkad, directing him to remit an amount of Rs.88,72,000/- wherein also the first respondent fixed the value of the property as Rs.4 lakh per Are. Petitioner contends that going by Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 read with Rule 12(9) of the Rules, 2008 and definition of the fair value under Section 2(viA) of the Act, 2008, the fair value of the land adjacent to the unnotified land for which fair value has been fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 or where the fair value has not been fixed for such land, the fair value fixed for similar and similarly situated land has to taken into consideration. 3. The contention of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22882 of 2021 is that there is already a notification under Section 28A in respect of the Sy.Nos.332/2, 366/4 and 332/4 which are produced as Exts.P14 to P17. In view of the above, it is contended that the first respondent RDO has W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 5 adopted a totally imaginary value and it is not discernible from the order that on what basis, the RDO has arrived at the value of Rs.4 lakh per Are as the fair value. Petitioners relied on the judgment in **Vimal Vincent v. RDO** [2020 (1) KLT 145], wherein it is held that on a conjoint reading of Section 27A of the Act and 12(9) of the Rules, the fee payable under the former provision can only be computed solely on the fair value of the property fixed as per Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act and that the fee can be quantified only on the basis of the fair value of the specific property involved, as fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act and in no other manner and not on the basis of a similarly placed property. 4. On receipt of the impugned orders directing to pay conversion fee, the petitioners preferred Ext.P19 objection dated 21.09.2021 whereas the petitioner in WP(C) No.22874 of 2021 has submitted Ext.P15 objection dated 21.09.2021. Petitioners contend that no action has been taken in this regard. 5. A statement has been filed by the first W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 6 respondent. The Village Officer also reported that the fair value of the land comprised in Re.Sy.No.332/4 333/2, 366/4 are Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and 90,000/- respectively and the fair value of the nearest garden land (Re.Sy.Nos.482/15, 16 and 17) is Rs.4,00,000/- at present and it is on the said basis that the conversion value was arrived at. It is further contended that as per Section 2(viA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 “fair value” means the fair value of the garden land adjacent to the unnotified land for which fair value has been fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act or where such fair value has not been fixed for such land, the fair value fixed for similar and similarly situated garden land. It is on the said basis that the fair value was fixed at Rs.4 lakh per Are in the case of the petitioners. 6. A reply affidavit was filed by the original petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22882 of 2021, wherein it is contended that the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.335/3, 335/4 and 366/20 are the adjacent purayidam lands and on what basis the land which is situated almost 600 mtrs. away W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 7 from the property of the petitioners was taken as a yardstick for the purpose of deciding the fair value of the unnotified land. Petitioners contend that the fair value of the land comprised in R.Sy.Nos.482/15, 16 and 17 cannot be taken as the adjacent land for the purpose of computing the fair value of the unnotified land in question whereas purayidam lands adjacent to the unnotified lands are very much available and the fair value of which already stand notified and there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for not taking the fair value of the said notified purayidam nearby the petitioners' property. Petitioners further contend that the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.482/15, 16 and 17 are now classified as commercially important plots whereas the plots of the petitioner are nowhere near any commercial area. Therefore, the fixation of the fair value as fixed in respect of the said properties is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Petitioners produced Exts.P21 and P22 possession certificates to show that the properties comprised in R.Sy.No.335/3, 335/4 and 366/20 are purayidam and Ext.P24 latest fair value notification in respect of W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 8 R.Sy.No.335/3, 335/4 and 366/20 show the fair value of the said land. Petitioners have also produced Ext.P23 sketch showing the distance between the property of the petitioners and the corresponding land of which the fair value was taken for calculating the conversion fee in respect of the petitioners which would show that the said property is lying between two roads and lying very far away from the property of the petitioners. ## 7. I have heard the contentions on both sides. 8. Going by the definition of fair value as provided under Section 2 (viA), “fair value” means the fair value of the garden land adjacent to the notified land for which fair value has been fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 or where such fair value has not been fixed for such land, the fair value for similar and similarly situated garden land. Based on the said definition, the contention of the petitioners is that the fair value of the adjacent land fixed for the similar or similarly situated garden land has to be taken into consideration as fair value for fixing the conversion fee. The sketch produced by the petitioners W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 9 shows that a property which was lying very far away and which is a commercially important has been taken into consideration to fix the land value or fair value for computing the conversion fee. 9. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the first respondent after taking into consideration the document as well as Ext.P23 sketch produced by the petitioners to substantiate their contentions. 10. In view of the above, the above Writ Petitions are disposed of setting aside Exts.P11, P12 and P13 notices dated 10.09.2021 in WP(C) No.22882 of 2021 and Ext.P9 notice dated 10.09.2021 in WP(C) No.22874 of 2021 with a consequential direction to the first respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for refixation of the fair value. Petitioners will be free to submit their notes of arguments producing all the documents/judgments including Ext.P23 sketch before the first respondent and the said respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above shall advert to the documents/judgments produced by the petitioners W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 10 along with the argument notes and take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** csl W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22882/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 07.08.2020 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.01.2020 OF THE CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ERIMAYUR. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 FOR ISSUING CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION FOR THE LANDS. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE PUBLICATION MADE ON 30.06.2020. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.07.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.02.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.07.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.1166/2021/REV DATED 25.02.2021. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.21521/2019 DATED 16.08.2019. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2021 IN W.P(C)NO.7337/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.09.2021 W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 12 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.09.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.09.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.333/2. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.366/4. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.332/4. - Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES. - Exhibit P18 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2020(1)KLT 145 VIMAL VINCENT VS.RDO. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/OBJECTION DATED 21.09.2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB COLLECTOR. - Exhibit P20 True copy of the fair value of land - Exhibit P21 True copy of possession certificate dated 7.8.2020 issued in favour of P.P. Ashok - Exhibit P22 True copy of possession certificate dated 7.8.2020 issued in favour of P.P. Ajith - Exhibit P23 The sketch of the properties Exhibit P24 True copy of the latest fair value notification dated 25.3.2023 in respect of Re. Sy. No. 335/3. 335/4 and 366/20 W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 13 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22874/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 5.7.2020 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.1.2020 OF THE CONVENOR., LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ERIMAYUR. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 FOR ISSUING CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION FOR THE LANDS. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE PUBLICATION MADE ON 30.06.2020. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.07.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE GO NO. 1166/2021 DATED 25.02.2021. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21521/2019 DATED 16.08.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO. 7337/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.09.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 366/4. Exhibit P11 RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. W.P.(C) Nos.22874 & 22882 of 2021 14 333/2. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.333/2 DOWNLOADED FROM THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES. Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2020(1) KLT 145 VIMAL VINCENT VS. RDO. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/OBJECTION DATED 21.09.2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB COLLECTOR.