The insistence for a fee regarding land not exceeding 25 cents was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writs, Orders or Directions to call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and to quash the same to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay fees for allowing the application for change of nature of the unnotified land, the extent of which is less than 25 cents.

ii. Issue a writ to declare that Exhibit P6 Circular issued by the 1st respondent to the extent it stipulates that the holder of the land has to pay fee for the entire extent of land, even though the application is for less than 25 cents is illegal, irregular and arbitrary.

iii. To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;

iv. Render such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 17.19 Ares of dry land (42.47 cents) in Re-

Sy No.133/1-10 and 133/1-9 of Anjur Village in Thrissur Taluk. According to the petitioner, the property is not included in the data bank and hence the petitioner preferred an application in Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking change of nature of the land. With respect to 9.71 Ares (23.99 cents), which according to the petitioner is exempted from payment of fees.

3. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,25,376/- which is 10% of the fair value for the entire extend of the land is the submission. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of fees. According to the petitioner, the question of payment of fee arises only when the petitioner intends to use the remaining portion of the land. The counsel relied the judgment of this Court in Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2022 (4) KLT 2190]. But Ext.P5 order is passed directing the petitioner to pay the fee. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property based on two documents. The petitioner submitted the application for 9.71 Ares which is covered by Ext.P1.

6. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, I think, the point is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of Raju’s case (supra). Therefore, the insistence for fee is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 proceedings, to the extent by which directed the petitioner to pay fees, is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to take consequential steps in the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, without insisting conversion fee, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-