High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; RDO to decide Form 6 ap...

WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date
2023-03-30
Court Decision / Holding
The court held that Section 27A permits fee-free conversion for land below 25 cents; The exemption is not defeated merely by post-2017 purchases unless there is a transaction after 30.12.2017 that fragments a larger extent into parcels below 25 cents. Communications not made by the Government cannot override the statutory provisions. The decision in Baby v. District Collector (2021) (6) KLT 316 is cited to hold that Ext.R3(c) cannot bind the court. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed, and the RDO is directed to pass appropriate orders on the Form 6 applications without insisting on the payment of fee, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions allowed; RDO to decide Form 6 applications without payment of fee, within two months of receipt of the judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sumesh U
  • Sudheesh U
  • Sareesh Sanker
  • Rancy Sareesh

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
  • Village Officer, Koduvayur-1
  • Agricultural Officer, Koduvayur Panchayat
  • State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue
  • District Collector, Thrissur
  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur
  • Village Officer, Nattika
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee, Nattika Grama Panchayat (Convener: Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Nattika)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Jacob Sebastian
  • • K.V. Winston
  • • Anu Jacob
  • • Divya R. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Parvathy K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two writ petitions under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking exemption from payment of fees for Form 6 applications for conversion of unnotified land. Petitioners Sumesh U. and Sudheesh U. (WP3538) and Sareesh Sanker and Rancy Sareesh (WP4450) contend their lands are below 25 cents as on 30.12.2017, and thus qualify for fee-free consideration of Form 6, under Section 27A and Rule 12(9) and the Schedule to the Rules. Respondents—the Revenue Divisional Officer, Village Officer, and Agricultural Officer in WP3538 and the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary of Revenue, the District Collector, the RDO, the Village Officer at Nattika, and the Local Level Monitoring Committee for Nattika Panchayat in WP4450—oppose the exemption, arguing that the concession applies only to specific extents below 25 cents and that lands purchased after 2017 may not qualify; they rely on Exts.R3(a)-(c) including a circular dated 23.07.2021. The court clarifies that the exemption is available for land below 25 cents, and that post-2017 purchases do not automatically forfeit it unless a transaction fragments a larger land into parcels under 25 cents after 30.12.2017. Communications not issued by the Government have no overriding effect. Relying on Baby v. District Collector (2021) (6) KLT 316), the Court holds Ext.R3(c) is not binding. The petitions are allowed with directions to the RDO to decide Form 6 applications without fee, within two months of receipt of the judgment copy.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Schedule to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Section 27A of the 2008 Act authorizes fee-free consideration of Form 6 applications for land below 25 cents, which on 30.12.2017 qualifies them for exemption from payment of fees. They rely on the Schedule and Rule 12(9) and seek admission of Form 6 without any fee. They challenge any circulars or orders that attempt to override the statute and rely on the statutory exemption to press their case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the exemption is strictly limited to extents below 25 cents per parcel and may not apply to lands purchased after 2017; they rely on Ext.R3(a) Government Order and Ext.R3(b)-(c) communications, including the 23.07.2021 circular. They contend that communications cannot override statutory provisions or valid Government Orders, and that the statutory fee may be payable unless the law clearly provides otherwise. They also argue that the exemption may be lost where a post-2017 transaction fragments a larger land into parcels under 25 cents.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Baby v. District Collector2021 (6) KLT 316PositiveThe Baby decision is cited as establishing that Ext.R3(c) circular is set aside and cannot bind the proceedings; it supports the court’s view that statutory exemptions apply and that circulars cannot override the statute.

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.3538 & 4450 of 2023 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**'CR'** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO.3538 OF 2023** ## **- PETITIONERS:** 1 SUMESH.U, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.T.R UNNIKRISHNAN, THARAVANTHEDATH HOUSE, KODUVAYUR AMSOM & DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 501 2 SUDHEESH.U, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.T.R UNNIKRISHNAN, THARAVANTHEDATH HOUSE, KODUVAYUR AMSOM & DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 501 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB DIVYA R. NAIR ## **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 001 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KODUVAYUR-1 VILLAGE, KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 501 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KODUVAYUR PANCHAYAT AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 501 BY SMT.PARVATHY K., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.3.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).4450/2023, THE COURT ON 30.3.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 2 :- ## **'CR'** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945** **WP(C) NO.4450 OF 2023** ## **- PETITIONERS :** 1 SARESH SANKER, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, EYYANI THOTTUNGAL, TRIPRAYAR, NATTIKA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 566. 2 RANCY SARESH, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.SARESH SANKER, EYYANI THOTTUNGAL, TRIPRAYAR, NATTIKA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 566. BY ADVS. S.SREEDEV ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI V.T.KAVITHA ## **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LANES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003 4 VILLAGE OFFICER NATTIKA VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 566 5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 3 :- REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, NATTIKA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 566 BY SMT.PARVATHY K., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).3538/2023, THE COURT ON 30.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 4 :- **==> picture [29 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ## JUDGMENT ## [W.P.(C) Nos.3538 and 4450 of 2023] Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023 The prayers in these writ petitions are for consideration of the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the 2008 Act') without insisting on payment of fees. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners are owners in possession of the property, the extent of property in both these cases is below 25 cents. It is submitted that the property was purchased from the prior owner and the extent of the property was identical. It is, therefore, contended that since the extent of the property as on 30.12.2017 was below 25 cents, the petitioners are entitled to consideration of their Form 6 applications, without payment of any fee as provided in Section 27A of the 2008 Act and Rule 12(9) and the Schedule to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. It is submitted that the respondents are refusing to consider the application on the ground that the properties were purchased on a later date and that therefore, the fees have to be paid. 3. A statement has been placed on record by the 3[rd] respondent in W.P.(C) No.4450/2023 contending that the exemption WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 5 :- from payment of fee for the conversion of the property is provided only to specific extents of property which are below 25 cents each. It is contended that since the petitioners had purchased the properties after 2017, they are not entitled to the exemption. It is contended that even if properties having a lesser extent is purchased after 2017, the benefit of conversion without fee will be lost. 4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that Section 27A of the 2008 Act provides for application seeking permission for use of unnotified land for other purposes. It is specified that land below an extent of 25 cents can be converted without payment of fees. The provision with regard to payment of fees is provided in Rule 12(9), which reads as follows :- 12. 27® ÕµáMí (2) ©ÉÕµáMí dÉµÞø¢ Õß¼í¾ÞÉÈ¢ æºÏîM¿ÞJ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØbÍÞÕÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢ ¥ÈáÕÆßAáKÄßÈáU ȿɿßdµÎ¢ :_ (9)åÕß¼í¾ÞÉÈ¢ æºÏîæM¿ÞJ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØbÍÞÕ ÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢ ¥ÈáÕÆßAáK ¥çÉfµ{ßW, ºGBZAí ¥ÈáÌtÎÞÏáU ÉGßµÏßW ÕcµñÎÞAßÏßGáU ÈßøAßÜáU ÄáµÏíAí ÁßÎÞaí dÁÞËíçxÞ ¥æÜïCßW §Üµíçd¿ÞÃßµí d¿ÞXØíËV Îáç¶È dÉØñáÄ Äáµ ËIßçÜAí ¥¿ºíºÄßæa æÄ{ßçÕÞ ÙÞ¼øÞAáKÄßçzW, ¥dÉµÞø¢ ¥ÈáÎÄß ÈWµæMG ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ÕߨñàVH¢, ØVæÕî ÈOV, ¥çÉfµX ¼ÜØ¢øfà ȿɿߵZ ØbàµøßçAI ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØVæÕî ÈOøá¢ ÕߨñàVHÕᢠ®KßÕ ÕcµñÎÞAßæAÞIᢠ¼ÜØ¢øfà ȿɿߵZ ÕßÖÆÎÞAßæAÞIᢠùÕÈcâ ÁßÕß×ÃW ³ËàØV ©JøÕí ÉáùæM¿áÕßçAIÄᢠ©JøÕßçÈÞæ¿ÞM¢ çÎW ÉùE ÕßÖÆÞ¢ÖBZ ØâºßMߺíºá æµÞIáU dÉØñáÄ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ²øá Øí浺îí ©IÞÏßøßçAIÄáÎÞÃá.å WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 6 :- The provision with regard to fee in the Schedule is as follows :- “2008_æÜ çµø{ æÈW ÕÏW _ ÄHàVJ¿ Ø¢øfà ºGBZ Õß¼í¾ÞÉÈ¢ æºÏîæM¿ÞJ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØbÍÞÕ ÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢ ¥ÈáÕÆßAáKÄßÈá ¥¿ÏíçAI ËàØí |2008_æÜ çµø{ æÈW ÕÏW _ ÄHàVJ¿ Ø¢øfà ºGBZ<br>“<br>Õß¼í¾ÞÉÈ¢ æºÏîæM¿ÞJ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØbÍÞÕ ÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢<br>¥ÈáÕÆßAáKÄßÈá ¥¿ÏíçAI ËàØí|2008_æÜ çµø{ æÈW ÕÏW _ ÄHàVJ¿ Ø¢øfà ºGBZ<br>“<br>Õß¼í¾ÞÉÈ¢ æºÏîæM¿ÞJ ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ØbÍÞÕ ÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢<br>¥ÈáÕÆßAáKÄßÈá ¥¿ÏíçAI ËàØí| |---|---| |________________________________________________________________________|| |dµÎ ÕߨñàVH¢ ËàØÞÏß ¥¿ÏíçAI Äáµ|| |ÈOV ÉFÞÏJí/ÎáÈߨßMÞÜßxß/çµÞVMçù×X|| |________________________________________________________________________|| |1.|25 æØaí Õæø<br>Øì¼Èc¢| ||µáùßMí._2017 Áߨ¢ÌV 30_)¢| ||ÄàÏÄß dÉÞÌÜcJßW 25| ||æØaßW ¥ÇßµøßAÞæÄÏáU| ||ÍâÎßAÞÃá ¨ Øì¼Èc¢| |________________________________________________________________________|| |2.|25 æØaßÈá Îáµ{ßW 1 ¯AV Õæø ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ÈcÞÏÕßÜÏáæ¿ 10%| |________________________________________________________________________|| |3.|1 ¯AùßÈá Îáµ{ßW<br>ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ÈcÞÏÕßÜÏáæ¿ 20%| |________________________________________________________________________|| |µáùßMí|:_ (1) ¥dÉµÞø¢ ØbÍÞÕ ÕcÄßÏÞÈ¢ ÕøáJÞX ©çgÖßAáK ÍâÎßÏßW| ||ÈßVNßAÞX ©çgÖßAáK æµGß¿Jßæa Äù ÕߨñàVH¢ 3000| ||ºÄáødÖ ¥¿ßÏßW µâ¿áÄW ¦æÃCßW ¥dÉµÞø¢ ¥ÇßµÎÞÏß| ||ÕøáK ³çøÞ ºÄáødÖ ¥¿ßAᢠ100 øâÉ ÈßøAßÜáU ËàØí| ||µâ¿ß ¥¿ÏíçAIÄÞÃá.| |µáùßMí|:_ (2) 2017 Áߨ¢ÌV 30_)¢ ÄàÏÄß Õæø ²KÞÏßAß¿K ÍâÎß,| ||¥ÄßÈáçÖ×¢ Äßøßºîí 25 æØæaÞ ¥ÄßÈá ÄÞæÝçÏÞ| ||ÕߨñàVHÎáU çÉïÞGáµ{ÞAßÏßGáæICßW, ¥ÕÏíAí| ||çÎWdÉµÞøÎáU Øì¼Èc¢ ÌÞǵÎÜï.¥Õ ²KÞÏß| ||µÃAÞAßÏÞÃá ËàØí ¨¿ÞçAIÄí.”| ## Ext.R3(a) Government Order produced by the Government Pleader also specifically states as follows :- “(2) 30.12.2017 Õæø ²KÞÏßAß¿K ÍâÎß, ¥ÄßÈáçÖ×¢ Äßøßºîí 25 æØæaÞ ¥ÄßÈá ÄÞæÝçÏÞ ÕߨñàVHÎáU çÉïÞGáµ{ÞAßÏßGáæICßW, ¥ÕÏíAí çÎWdÉµÞøÎáU Øì¼Èc¢ ÌÞǵÎÜï.å¥Õ ²KÞÏß µÃAÞAßÏÞÃá ËàØí ¨¿ÞçAIÄí.” Reliance is sought to be placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.R3(b) and R3(c) documents. It is pertinent to note that Ext.R3(c) circular dated 23.7.2021 has been set aside by this Court WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 7 :- in its entirety in the decision reported in Baby v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316]. With regard to the clarification which is relied on by the learned Government Pleader, I notice that the clarifications are not in the form of either a circular or a Government Order and they are only communications issued by individual officers apparently to queries raised with regard to the applicability of the exemption. Since the said communications are not orders issued by the Government, I am clearly of the opinion that they cannot have any applicability or operation over and above the statutory provisions or the executive Government Orders validly issued on the subject. 5. A reading of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Schedule as well as Ext.R3(a) Government Order would make it amply clear that the exemption would be lost only in case there is a transaction after 30.12.2017 by which, a property having a larger extent is fragmented to make the individual parcels of land of an extent of less than 25 cents. The contention that any property purchased after December, 2017 would loss the exemption even when the said property was less then 25 cents in extent even prior to such transaction cannot be accepted in view of the specific language of the Act, the Rule and the Schedule. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 8 :- statement are completely untenable. The communications issued, which do not have the force of law, cannot stand in the way of consideration of applications in accordance with law. These writ petitions are, accordingly, ordered directing the RDO to pass appropriate orders on the Form 6 applications submitted by the petitioners without insisting on the payment of fee. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/9.3.2023 WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3538/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1878/2020 OF THE SRO, KODUVAYUR DATED 30.11.2020. Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.2555/2010 OF THE SRO, KODUVAYUR DATED 04.09.2010. Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1418/1990 OF THE SRO, KODUVAYUR DATED 22.11.1990. Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1501/1991 OF THE SRO, KODUVAYUR DATED 29.11.1991. Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.14860/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 09.02.2022. Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY- IN- SLIP DATED 10.01.2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C) Nos.3538 & 4450 OF 2023 -: 10 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4450/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1026/2021 OF SRO TRIPRAYAR DATED 12.10.2021. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. A282/9-10 DATED 05.09.2009 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DATA BANK DATED 17.08.2022 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 12.01.2022 ISSUED FROM THE TREASURY, TRIPRAYAR. - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.1166/ 2021/REV DATED 25.02.2021 ANNEXURE R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.REVP1/69/2022/REV DATED 07.05.2022 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE(P) DEPT. ANNEXURE R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.REV-P1/117/ 2021/REV DATED 23.07.2021 OF REVENUE (P) DEPT. ANNEXURE R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.REV-P1/206/2022REV DATED 01.08.2022 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT.