Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14287
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.NAGARESH, J
RANISH K.T., – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, – Respondent
WP(C)/8599/2021
R.K. Muraleedharan
The modified fee structure for unnotified lands under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act was applicable to the petitioners’ case.
Headnote:
Land - Property Rights - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act - Section 27A - The court underscores entitlement to modified fee structure based on government order for unnotified lands, impacting petitions for land use change.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash a notice demanding payment for changing land use and argued for entitlement to benefits under a government order modifying fees for unnotified lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question was not categorized as paddy land when the act came into force and was therefore entitled to the modified fee structure as per the government order.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefit under the government order for unnotified lands in changing the nature of their land and the validity of the notice demanding payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The relevant government order provided a clear basis for petitioners to apply for fee modifications when the land was previously classified under different criteria not required to meet the initial demands.
Final Decision: The court set aside the notice demanding payment and directed a new application to be considered under the modified government order.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2021 The petitioners seek to quash Ext.P10 notice to the extent it demands ₹28,35,666/- in the light of Ext.P11 and to direct the 1st respondent to change the nature of the land owned by the petitioners.
2. The petitioners purchased 7.6893 Ares of land in Re-survey No.54/3C2 of Puthiyangadi Village, Edakad Desom in Kozhikode Taluk as per Ext.P1 Assignment Deed dated 21.12.2010. According to the petitioners, the property is a garden land surrounded by buildings. The petitioners learnt that the land is not included in the Data Bank. The petitioners wanted to build a commercial building in the property. The possession certificate describes the land as 'Nanja'. As the land is described as 'Nanja', the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application under Form-6 to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. This Court, by Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) No.19270/2019, directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 application within three months.
3. The 1st respondent thereupon issued Ext.P8 order requiring the petitioners to provide the report of KSREC. The petitioners remitted necessary fees for obtaining report of the KSREC. Ext.P9 report was given by the KSREC evidencing that the land is a mixed plantation under scattered mixed vegetation/plantation/trees in the data of 04.06.2007. The 1st respondent, however, issued a notice to the petitioners directing to remit 30% of the fair value for an amount of ₹8,54,666/- and an additional amount of ₹19,81,000/-, as per Ext.P10.
4. The petitioners would contend that the Government has issued Ext.P7 order modifying the amounts to be remitted in the case of unnotified lands for category change, as per Ext.P11. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P11 order, contend the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.
6. From the pleadings, it emerges that as per Ext.P9 report submitted by the KSREC, the land has been described as scattered mixed vegetation/plantation/trees in the data of 04.06.2007. When Act 28 of 2008 was brought into force on 12.08.2008, the land in question was not a paddy land. The land was described as 'Nanja land' in Revenue records. Subsequently, the Government has issued Ext.P11 order dated 25.02.2021, altering the rate of fee payable under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P11 Government Order. Ext.P10 notice of the 1st respondent is therefore set aside. The petitioners may file a fresh application in Form-6. If the petitioners file such an application within one month, the 1st respondent shall consider the application submitted by the petitioners in the light of Ext.P11 Government Order and orders thereon shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of such application.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/26.07.2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8599/2021 PETITIONE'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED JENMAN ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 21.12.2010 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
02.07.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2019 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED
03.07.2019 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF A RECEIPT DATED
05.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.19270/2019 DATED 03.09.2019 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
25.12.2019 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30.11.2020 ALONG WITH THE REPORT ON LAND USE CHANGE ISSUED BY THE KSREC EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
08.02.2021 EXHIBIT P1
