Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.Nagaresh, J.
Reeta John, J. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government Department Of Revenue And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 25725 OF 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules - Building Fee - The court set aside the demand for fee in respect of the existing building as it was in existence prior to the Act, 2008.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owns a property with a commercial building and sought to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. The authorities demanded a fee for the existing building.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the building was in existence prior to the Act, 2008, and therefore, the fee imposed on the petitioner was not justified.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner should pay a fee for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records due to the existing building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fee in respect of a building is leviable only for buildings proposed to be constructed after changing the nature of the land, and since the building was in existence prior to the Act, the demand for fee was set aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the demand for fee in respect of the existing building and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders afresh within a month.
Please provide the legal document content (to replace {content} in the template) so I can extract and summarize the key points with proper references as instructed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner owns 4.85 Ares of property in Survey No.P149/2B/43 of Pathanamthitta Village with a four storied commercial building therein. According to the petitioner, the building was constructed prior to the year 2008.
2. The land of the petitioner was described as paddy land in the BTR and in the Revenue records. The petitioner wanted to change the nature of the land in BTR and other Revenue records. Therefore, a Form-6 application invoking Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules was filed by the petitioner. The application submitted by the petitioner was responded to as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Deputy Collector. By Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the petitioner has been required to pay a fee of Rs.12,46,128/-in respect of the building existing in the property.
3. The petitioner states that the building was already existing in the property even prior to the year 2008. Therefore, fee cannot be imposed on the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.
5. Ext.P5 certificate issued by the Pathanamthitta Municipality would indicate that the building of the petitioner was in existence even in the year 1999-2000 and building tax was being paid in respect of the said building since then. Therefore, it is evident that the building was in existence when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force.
6. The Schedule attached to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 would indicate that fee in respect of a building is leviable only for buildings proposed to be constructed after changing the nature of the land. Since the building of the petitioner was in existence even prior to the Act, 2008, Exts.P1 and P2 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.
7. In the facts of the case, Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside to the extent it demands fee in respect of the building in question. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to pass orders afresh within a period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
AI
The fee in respect of a building is leviable only for buildings proposed to be constructed after changing the nature of the land.
The fee for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records is not applicable to buildings that existed prior to the Act, 2008.
Fees for land use change cannot be imposed on constructions pre-dating legal amendments, affirming principles established in prior case law.
A fee demand for existing buildings exceeding 3000 sq. ft. is unenforceable as it violates prevailing statutory provisions.
Court affirms prior rulings that rule imposing conversion fees is unlawful, pending higher court review.
Existing construction and prior land conversion need expedited review per established legal standards.
The court ruled that a fee demanded for an existing building, constructed prior to the relevant Act, is not applicable.
The court held that the collection of additional fees for building areas exceeding 3000 sq. ft. under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008, is unsustainable, relying on esta....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
