JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“(I) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P9 and quash the same.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 application and compute the fee on the basis of the notified fair value of the petitioner’s property as on 19.03.2020 and in the light of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Ajith Kumar Shenoy vs. RDO, Kottayam reported in 2020 (5) KLT 683 and Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala reported in 2020 (6) KLT 738 and change the description of the property mentioned in Exhibit P6 to dry land/purayidom in the relevant revenue records, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had submitted an application under Form 6 in respect of a total extent of 11.63 Ares of land situated in Re-Survey No.32/8 & 9 of Kayamkulam Village, Karthikappaly Taluk in Alappuzha District. It is submitted that the application has been considered and a notice issued to the petitioners requiring the remittance of an amount of Rs.6,65,170/- as fees for the conversion. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fair value of the property as is evident from Ext.P7 at the time of submission of the application, that is on 19.03.2020, was only Rs.80,000/Are. It is further submitted that the building in the property was already in existence and had been constructed as early as in 2011 on the basis of the building permit issued in 2009 and that the charging of the fees for the proposed building is also completely without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

4. It is further submitted that Ext.P8 circular governs the issue and that the Government itself had specifically directed that in case of applications made before 15.05.2020, only the fair value of the subject property as on the date of the application can be taken into account. It is further submitted that even so, going by the Government Order dated 25.02.2021, only the fair value of the subject property by which it exceeds 25 cents can be taken into account for computing the fee payable.

5. A statement has been placed on record by the 2nd respondent. It is stated therein as follows:

“3. Since the Government of Kerala as per REV- P1/313/2021-REV dated 10.12.2021 unified the fee as 10% of fairvalue of similar dryland for changing classification of land to 1 acre irrespective of Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation, the fee to the land under question was recalculated in consonance with the Government Order and informed the petitioner to remit the recalculated fee of Rs.4,54,085/- (Fee for land Rs.2,11,085/- and fee for building Rs.2,43,000/-)”

It is submitted that the petitioners has been required to remit the above amount as fees.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the application submitted by the petitioners was, admittedly, one submitted in March 2020 before the definition of fair value in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 underwent an amendment. Therefore, going by the provisions of the Act as it stood on the date of the petitioners’ application as well as the judicial pronouncements of this Court, the fair value which could have been taken into account for the purpose of computation of fee is only the fair value of the subject property and not of adjacent dryland. Moreover, the enhancements, if any, in the fair value could also not have been taken into account in the light of Ext.P8 circular. Moreover, the Government Order dated 25.02.2021 also specifies that the rate of fee to be paid with refer