Back
N. NAGARESH
Reeta John, J. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government Department Of Revenue – Respondent
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 Pathanamthit
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
