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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M.N PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44696 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, SRI.ANIL GEORGE, SHRI.ASHIK TOM, SHRI.ADARSH K., SHRI.ALEX KEVIN GEORGE
For the Respondents: GP, SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY

The petitioner is exempt from fee payment under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act due to the property's size.

Headnote:The petition files seek a writ of certiorari to quash the order demanding fees under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner argues for exemption based on property size. The court finds in favor of the petitioner consistent with prior rulings (Dr. A.V. Sajeev case). The 2nd Respondent is directed to process the Form-6 application without insisting on fees.

Table of Content
1. seeking relief for fee exemption based on land size. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears submissions for consideration. (Para 3)
3. court's ruling aligns with previous judgments. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs calling for the records relating to Exhibit P1 and quash the same.

ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled for exemption for payment of fees under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 as the property of the petitioner is less than 25 cents.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reconsider Exhibit P1 order and pass orders separately for the lands as per Exhibit P2 and P3.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pass orders in Exhibit P7 Form 6 application without insisting for any payment under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008.

v. A part of English translation of Malayalam Exhibits which is in Vernacular language and may be dispensed with the above writ Petition (C).

vi. Such further and other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.” [SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, by which the petitioner is directed to pay conversion fee for the land owned by him. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev ( 2023 (5) KHC 242 ).

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

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Dr. A. V. Sajeev’s case (supra). If that be the case, the prayer in this writ petition can be allowed.

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

1. The 2nd respondent / authorised o directed to process the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner, without insisting fees as demanded in Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

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