Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SMITHA ANANDHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), TIRUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42265 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
For the Respondents: SHRI.ARAVIND R. NAIR, SRI.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Writ petitions can set aside administrative demands subject to ongoing appeals affecting precedent.
Headnote:The writ petition, regarding the demand for a conversion fee and permission for construction, challenged the notice issued by the village panchayat. The Court found precedent in Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, but noted ongoing appeals against that case. The final ruling set aside the demand notice and mandated processing of the application within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding property conversion and fee demands. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties are considered. (Para 3) |
| 3. court references prior case law impacting the current case. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i. “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the demand proceedings pursuant Ext P4, issued by the 6th respondent to the petitioner.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or direction or appropriate order to the 6th respondent panchayath, for numbering the building of petitioner and issue necessary permission to start the residential activity as per the law.
iii. To dispense with the filing of the translation of the vernacular documents.
iv. Such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.” [sic]
2. The petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Re-survey No. 206/2-7, 206/1-9 of Tripangode Village in Malappuram District. The property is noted as 'nilam'
in the Basic Tax Register. It is the case of the petitioner that the property is not included in the Data Bank. The petitioner submitted form-6 application for conversion of the land from nilam to purayidam, which was allowed as evident by Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioner constructed a residential building, after obtaining Ext.P3 building permit is the submission. However, a notice demanding conversion fee for the building exceeding 3000 sq. feet is claimed in Ext.P4 by the 6th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (1) KHC 306 ]. If that is the case, this writ petition can be allowed. But, the Government Pleader submitted that the judgment inAbad Builders Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) is challenged before the Division Bench in WA No. 495/2025. If that is the case, the directions issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in WA No. 495/2025.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner :
1) Ext.P4 is set aside.
2) The 6th respondent is directed to process Ext.P3 application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
