The court established that fair value for land under conservation laws must reflect specific property conditions rather than comparative values, ensuring proper adherence to statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of September, 2021 The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order to the extent the 2nd respondent declined to adopt the fair value of the property of the petitioner in working out the fee to be paid under Section 27A (3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 objection taking into consideration of the settled legal provisions.

2. The petitioner is owner of 8.50 Ares of property in R.Sy.No.22/2 of block No.25 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Kunnathunade Taluk. The property is recorded as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-6 seeking to change the nature of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records. The application was made on 26.03.2019, invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

3. The application has been allowed as per Ext.P1, but with a direction to pay fee payable under Section 27A (3) of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland `

Act, fixing the fair value @ 1,17,000/- per Are with 100% increase. Increased fair value would now stand to `

2,34,000/-.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Department of Registration has already published fair value of the land in respect of the petitioner and the fair value per `

Are is only 22,000/-. In Ext.P1, the fair value has been increased presumably taking into consideration the fair value of other lands in the nearby areas.

5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the land is now found as a residential plot with a private road access. It is because of the change in the nature of the plot that the fair value had to be increased in consonance with the factual situation.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. This Court in the judgment reported inAjith Kumar Shenoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2020 (5) KLT 683 ] had occasioned to consider fixation of fee based on fair value. In the said judgment, this Court held that the fee prescribed as per Section 27A (3) r/w Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules can only be the fair value of the subject property covered by the application filed under (1) and it cannot be the notified fair value in respect of any other property.

8. In view of the law laid down by this Court in 2020 (5) KLT 683 , this Court is of the considered view that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider Ext.P1 to the extent it fix fair value and the fee, in the light of the judgment of this Court. Furthermore, it has to be noted that by Ext.P5 Circular dated 20.02.2021 wherein the Government has also taken view that the fair value under Section 27A is to be fixed based on the fair value as existed on the date of making application under . This Court has also upheld the view taken in the said Circular. The decision shall be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/09.09.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25508/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO A 13-5725/2019 DATED

27.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON

03.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPYO F GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED

25.02.2021 BEARING NO.G.O.

(ORDINARY)NO.1166/2021/REV.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.REV-

P1/219/2020-REV DATED 20.02.2021.