1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of a Government Notification exempting conversion fees for land up to 25 cents under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
State of Kerala & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Moushmi Ann Jacob – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s) of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25736-25737 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s) of 2025 @ Diary No.49911 of 2023) And Civil Appeal No (s) of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s) of 2025 @ Diary No. 49913 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Tiwari , AOR Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu Pazhanganat, Adv. Ms. Kaushik Akira Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mrs. Beena Victor, Adv. Mr. C Govind Venugopal, Adv. Ms. M Priya, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv. Mr. M Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. A S Naushad, Adv. Ms. Puspita Basak, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Tiwari , AOR Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu Pazhanganat, Adv. Ms. Kaushik Akira Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mrs. Beena Victor, Adv. Mr. C Govind Venugopal, Adv. Ms. M Priya, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv. Mr. M Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. A S Naushad, Adv. Ms. Puspita Basak, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv.
The court ruled that the exemption from reclamation fees applies only to land up to 25 cents, and any excess land is subject to the full fee, emphasizing strict interpretation of notifications.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Interpretation of Government Notification dated 25th February 2021 - Exemption from payment of reclamation fee for lands up to 25 cents - The court held that the fee is payable for the entire extent of land exceeding 25 cents, rejecting the interpretation that only the excess over 25 cents should be charged. (Paras 11, 18, 25)
(B) Delegated Legislation - The court emphasized that notifications issued under delegated legislation must be interpreted strictly, and the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish entitlement to exemptions. (Paras 13, 15)
(C) Classification - The court affirmed that the State can create reasonable classifications for fee exemptions based on land extent, which must have a rational nexus to the legislative intent. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The respondent owned 14.57 acres of land and sought to change its use for educational loans. The State demanded a fee based on the entire land area, citing a notification exempting fees for land up to 25 cents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notification clearly states that the fee is applicable to the entire land exceeding 25 cents, and the respondent must pay the conversion fee accordingly.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the Government Notification regarding fee exemptions and the maintainability of the application under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notification's language indicates that the exemption applies only to land up to 25 cents, and any land exceeding this limit is subject to the fee.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether fee exemption for land up to 25 cents applies as a deduction from total land area or only to owners of land not exceeding 25 cents. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. The Notification creates two distinct classes of landholders; exemption clauses must be strictly interpreted using the literal rule, and reasonable classification by the State is permissible. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Exemption notifications creating size-based categories are interpreted strictly; land exceeding the exemption threshold is liable for fees on the entire extent, not just the portion exceeding the limit. (Para 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 )
5. Appeals allowed and High Court judgment overruled; conversion fees are payable on the total extent of land owned by the respondent. (Para 25 )
6. How should a Government Notification granting an exemption or concession be interpreted?
Such notifications must be interpreted strictly. The person claiming the exemption must establish entitlement, and mandatory conditions must be fulfilled exactly, although some latitude may be shown for requirements that are directory in nature. (Para 15 )
7. What is the distinction between the literal rule and strict interpretation in statutory construction?
The literal rule requires wording to be construed according to grammatical meaning. Strict interpretation involves the plain meaning test but can accept essential inferences to avoid absurdity and align with legislative intent. (Para 16 )
8. Does a fee exemption for land up to a certain size apply as a deduction for all landholders or only to those within that size limit?
It creates distinct classes. If the land exceeds the exemption threshold, the owner falls into a different category and is liable for fees on the entire extent, not just the portion exceeding the limit. (Para 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 )
9. Under what conditions is the State permitted to create different classes of persons in administrative notifications?
The State is permitted reasonable classification provided there is a rational nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved, ensuring the action is fair, non-discriminatory, and non-arbitrary. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The issue in these appeals is the construction of a Government Notification exempting the payment of fee upon reclamation of land originally reflected in the records of the State as ‘paddy land’ in accordance with the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008 [“The Act”]. The Learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 6th February 2023 [In W.P (C) 23400 of 2022] passed in WP(C)No. 23400/2022 held that the fee payable by a person would be calculable for the portion of land that is in excess of 25 cents, since that much stands exempted. Such a finding in law was confirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 1st August 2023 in WA No.983/2023, and a review filed thereagainst in R.P. No. 894/2023 was dismissed by order dated 4th October 2023. The appellant-State takes exception to such a reading of the Notification, and hence, it is before us.
3. The background in which the writ petitions, their findings and subsequent review petition impugned herein, arose, is: -
3.1 The Respondent is the owner of land measuring 14.57 acres having Survey Number 97/2 of Karikode Village in Thodupuzha Taluk. On 26th October 2019, with the intention of putting the land to alternate use, i.e., using it to secure an education loan, made an application to the competent authority under Form 6 of Section 27 of the Act. Thereafter an application was further made to remove the said land from the ‘data bank’, under Form 5 of the Act.
3.2 The Revenue Officer, Idduki, by way of Notice dated 27th January 2021, informed the respondent that the property is de-notified as per the Act, thereby, she was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,74,840/-, which is 10% of the value of the property, which totals to Rs.17,40,000/-. The relevant extract thereof, is as below: -
“As per reference no.1 you had submitted application for the change of nature of 14.57 Are property situated at survey no. 97/2, Thodupuzha Taluk, Karikod Village, Block 33. The property mentioned as field in the revenue records. As per reference no.2 the Kerala paddy and wetland (amendment act 2018) section 12(9) the nature of the unnotified land can be change by the panchayat on payment of 10% of the property value for properties having the measurement of 20.23 Are. As per reference no.5 report, it is understood that the applicant’s property comes with the panchayat limit. As per reference no.6 The Kerala Paddy and wetland (amendment act 2018) Rule (4E) (4F) the property has been removed from the data bank of the Kerala paddy. Hence, the applicant’s property is not in the data bank therefore as per the Kerala paddy and wetland (amendment act 2018) the property is unnotified.
It is understood from the application that the nature of the property needs to be changed for the purpose of taking education loan. As per the Kerala paddy and wetland (amendment act 2018) rule 12(9) if the nature of property which needs to be changed is above 3000 square feet, for every square feet, a fees of Rs.100/- need to be remitted. If there no plan of constructing any building in the applicant’s property, then there is no need of remitting any fees.
Under the Kerala paddy and wetland (amendment act 2018) section 27A for change of nature of the unnotified land, the value of the property will be considered as; the value of the property situated near to the applicant’s property, and if there is no value is fixed for the nearby properties, then the value will be fix according to the nature of the property. Hence as per reference no.3 circular the property comprising survey no.95/1 is the nearby property to the applicant’s property and as per the registered the value of that property is mentioned as 60,000/- for 1 Are. Hence the fees for the present application can be considered according to the value of the nearby property. As per reference no.7 the Karikod village officer has valued the property accordingly. Hence the amount needs to be pa
