Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SUDHEER BABU – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 20263/2023
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN, ATHIRA A.MENON, Vinod Singh Cheriyan, T.M.KHALID, K.P.SUSMITHA
The court established that land less than 25 cents is exempt from additional fees under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, reinforcing limits on jurisdictional fee assessments.
Headnote:
Writ - Quashing Orders - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Sections 12(9), 27A) - Summary: The court deemed the fee imposed by Section 12(9) as excessive and illegal as the property fell within exempted criteria, underscoring compliance with the Act's limits on fee assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owned land classified as paddy land and sought a building completion certificate after constructing a property exceeding 3000 square feet. The local authority demanded fees based on the land's category change, leading to the dispute over the fee.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the fee demanded for change in land classification and if his land qualifies for exemption under the applicable act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that no fee is due as the petitioner’s land does not exceed the exempted extent, thereby ruling against the exceeding levy under the act.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of in favor of the petitioner, quashing the fee demand.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “I) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Ext. P6 communication by the 3rd respondent dated 13.05.2022 and Ext. P7 order issued by the 1" respondent dated 28.03.2023;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to accept Ext. P4 and P4(a) without insisting for the order from the 1st respondent showing the change of category of land and the fees remitted towards excess of construction over 3000 square feet;
iii) Declare that Section 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2018 is ultra virus the provision of Act 28 of 2008 to the extent it imposed a levy of fee of Rs. 100/- per square feet over and above the construction of 3000 slquare feet;
iv) Declare that the petitioner is not liable to produce the change of category of land since he obtained permit on 29.07.2016 and to remit the fees as Section 27A has come into force with effect from 30.12.2017;
v) Issue such other writ, orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.
vi) It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined the relief to the validity of Ext.P7 and also sought for a direction to accept Exts.P4 and P4(a) without insisting on the payment of fee, as directed in Ext.P7.
3. Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 3.Ares
48.98 square meters of land (8.62 cents) in Re-survey No.111/25 and 4.04 Ares (9.98 cents) of land in Re-Survey No.111/26, both of Block 2 of Perumanna Village, Kozhikode District. Petitioner, claims to have purchased the aforesaid properties in the year 2014 and 2015 as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds, respectively and after demolishing the house existing on the property obtained a building permit in the year 2016 and proceeded to complete a portion of the building out of the permitted 749.11 square meters. The completed portion of the building, which forms the ground floor, was granted building numbers as 9/328 A1 to A16. Thereafter, the first floor of the building was constructed. A portion of the first floor was changed to a residential building and requested the local authority to grant completion certificate. However, Panchayat directed the petitioner to submit a revised plan and also to obtain permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) regarding conversion of the land, as according to them, the property was included as a ‘paddy land’ in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). Accordingly, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 revised plan and also approached the RDO with an application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , (Ext.P5)
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, pursuant to petitioner’s application, issued Ext.P7 directing change of entries in the Revenue Records on payment of an amount of Rs.7,54,890/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred and ninety only), being the value calculated for the land as well as the building, which was in excess of 3000 (three thousand) square feet.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order.
6. I have heard Sri.R.K. Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vinod Singh Cherian, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 as well as Smt.Devishri R., learned Government Pleader.
7. The first question to be considered is whether the petitioner is liable to pay any amount, as demanded in Ext.P7. In the decision inBaby M.K.& Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Others [ 2021 (6) KLT 316 ], this Court has held that the cut off date of 25.02.2021, imposed in the circular of 23.07.2021 restricting the benefit of exemption up to 25 cents was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore, the position as it now stands is that irrespective of any cut off date property up to an extent of 25 cents, is
