SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28551

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
UNNIKRISHNAN M.K., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/18568/2020



Advocates:
SPL . GP. K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR

Fees for land use must align with the fair value at the application date, overriding any subsequent reassessments.

Headnote:

Fees - Land Use - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A - The court reviewed the computation of fees based on land value at the time of application, emphasizing adherence to originally assessed values over retrospective revisions, which led to the quashing of previous orders.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied to use his land under Section 27A of the Act, contesting the fee calculated at an inflated value rather than the value at the time of application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that fees should be based on the land's fair value at the time of application, ruling that the prior assessment was legally flawed.

Issues: Whether the fee for application under Section 27A of the Act should be computed based on the fair value of land at the time of the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the fee for land use applications must be determined based on the fair value of the land existing at the time of the application submission.

Final Decision: The court quashed the previous fee assessments and mandated a recalculation based on the fair value at the time of application.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds a land measuring 8.5 Ares in Re survey No.201/8 of Ongallur I Village. The land of the petitioner satisfies the definition of 'un-notified' land in terms of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application before the third respondent for permission to make use of the land for other purposes invoking Section 27A (1) of the Act. On the said application, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,73,952/- towards fees payable under (3) of the Act. Ext.P13 is the communication issued to the petitioner in this regard by the third respondent. As Ext.P13 was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, he sought orders from the third respondent for recalling Ext.P13 communication. The said request of the petitioner was turned down by the third respondent as per Ext.P17 communication. Exts.P13 and P17 communications are under challenge in the writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he preferred the application under Section 27A of the Act on 24.01.2019 on which date the fair value of the land was Rs.9,375/- per Are and as such, he is liable to pay the fees in terms of (3) of the Act only in accordance with the said fair value. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the fees payable by him has in fact been computed and communicated to him as per Ext.P13 communication treating the fair value of the land as Rs.1,87,500/- per Are. It is stated by the petitioner that the said amount is a fair value of the land refixed much after the petitioner has preferred the application under of the Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The materials on record indicate that the petitioner preferred the application under Section 27A of the Act on 24.01.2019 and the fair value of the land as on that day was only Rs.9,375/- per Are. The materials also indicate that it was while the application aforesaid of the petitioner was pending consideration, the fair value of the land has been revised from Rs.9,375/- per Are to Rs.1,87,500/- per Are. In Ajith Kumar Shenoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2020 (5) KLT 683 , this Court held that the fee payable for application under (1) of the Act is the fee to be computed based on the fair value of the land as on the date of the application under (1) of the Act. If that be so, the petitioner is liable to pay fee for the application dated 24.01.2019 reckoning the fair value of the land prevailing on that day namely at Rs.9,375/- per Are.

In the said view of the matter, Exts.P13 and P17 orders are quashed and the third respondent is directed to recompute the fee payable by the petitioner and give a communication to the petitioner in this regard. This shall be done within a month.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE ds 26.03.2021 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 1369/1991 OF SRO PATTAMBI.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER ISSUED BY ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 6 2002 OF SRO PATTAMBI.

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTO COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19-

06-2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-05-2017 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KALLADI PATTA.

EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.

24983/2017 DATED 24-08-2017 OF THIS HON.COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-05-2018 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ONGALLUR TO THE SECRETARY, ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTO COPY OF RECTIFICATION NOTIFICATION DATED 16-10-2019 PUBLISHED IN THE GOVT.

GAZETTE.

EXHIBIT P9 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.10.2018 OF THE AGRL. OFFICER, ONGALLUR PANCHAYATH SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)

NO.18995/2019 DATED 28.10.2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P11 PHOTO COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 4.11.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top