A title holder is entitled to a fee exemption under Section 27A for converting land, even when multiple separate properties are involved, provided they do not exceed the specified limits individually.

JUDGMENT

.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 demand notice and also seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 for expeditious consideration of Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner based on Ext.P2 Government Order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is the title holder and in absolute possession of 05.19 Ares of property comprised in resurvey No.195/16 in block No.15 of Kadampanad Village by virtue of Ext.P9 sale deed No.312/2007 of SRO, Kadampanad. An application in Form No.6 was submitted before the 2^nd respondent and the same was considered and as per Ext.P1 the petitioner was directed to remit conversion fee to the tune of Rs.91,344/-. Petitioner remitted the said amount unaware of the fact that there is a fee exemption for change of nature of land up to 25 cents under Section 27A of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, as per Ext.P2 Government Order. Later on, by Ext.P4 orders in this regard has been passed to effect changes about the property in the revenue records. Petitioner being aware of Ext.P2 Government Order submitted Ext.P6 representation before respondents 1 and 2. It is aggrieved by the non- refund of the amount already remitted by the petitioner towards conversion fee that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. A statement has been filed by the 2^nd respondent wherein it is stated that upon perusal of the affidavit showing the details of the property owned by the petitioner, it was found that he is in possession of wetland exceeding 10.12 Ares and it is in the said circumstance that the conversion fee was demanded.

4. A copy of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is produced as Ext.P7, which would reveal that the property now covered by Form No.6 application, having an extent of 5.19 Ares, is in Kadampanad Village, whereas all the other properties referred to in the affidavit are in Erath Village. Petitioner based on the same submits that though he is in possession of other properties, they are not adjacent properties or covered by a single document. Petitioner has produced Ext.P9 deed by which he obtained the subject property, which shows that the property transferred to the petitioner is only 5.19 Ares and further, the prior title deed referred to in Ext.P9 also shows that the land is only having an extent of 5.19 Ares. On the basis of the same it is submitted by the petitioner that he is entitled for refund of the amount paid as conversion fee. Petitioner relies on the judgment inSajeev A. V.(Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [ 2023 (5) KHC 245 ] wherein paragraph

6 reads as follows:

“6. The respondents do not have any contention that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 27A . The dispute is only regarding the application of the schedule regarding the fee payable for conversion under Section 27A . Section 27A does not lay any restriction regarding the extent of property which can be subject matter of conversion. The schedule only provides for different rates of fee depending on the extent sought to be converted. The only provision that says that benefit will not be available is contained in Ext.P8 order which specifically says that in cases where lands that are sought to be converted were part of a larger extent of land, from which extents of 25 cents or less are separated and conversion is sought for the extent thus separated, the exemption will not be available. The intention is only to disallow applications which seek exemption from fee on the basis of a division effected after the date of coming into force of Section 27A . There is no provision pointed out which says that exemption cannot be claimed by the same applicant in respect of different