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) 12571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
BENNY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36695 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.Mereena J.Joseph
For the Respondents: Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath

The court affirmed the necessity to revise the conversion fee in accordance with updated fair value while noting exemptions were not applicable.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the notice under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, regarding conversion fees for property ownership. The court determined the petitioner was not entitled to exemption due to a reversal of a relied-upon judgment. The fee demand will be adjusted according to revised fair value as per the government's directive.

Result: The writ petition stands disposed of.

Table of Content
1. court's jurisdiction in managing land conversion fees under statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. analysis of relevant case law affecting current exemptions. (Para 3)
3. adjustment of fees in accordance with the new fair value. (Para 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

Heard Smt.Mereena J.Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 12.23 Ares or property in Resurvey No.184/3-1 of Angamaly Village. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and notice at Ext.P1 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing the petitioner to satisfy the conversion fee as prescribed by the statute for the entire property. The petitioner has sought to challenge the notice at Ext.P1, essentially contending that she was entitled for the benefit of exemption at least till 25 cents on the basis of the exemption provided by the Government. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Moushmi Ann Jacob v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (5) KHC 339 ]

3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that the judgment sought to be relied on by the petitioner has since been reversed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [ 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 235 ] Therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled to challenge the notice at Ext.P1, or the demand of fee demanded therein.

4. However, Smt.Mereena, points out that the fee pursuant to Ext.P1 has been calculated with reference to the fair value at that point of time and since the fair value has since been revised by the Government themselves, the fee also requires to be varied accordingly.

5. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take note of the present fair value and revise the demand of fee to be paid by the petitioner for seeking conversion under Section 27A of the Act.

With the afore observations, this writ petition would stand disposed of.

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