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) 12672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
VAHEEDA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1995 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SRI.JOEMON ANTONY, SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN, SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO, SMT.ANJANA P.V.
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP

The imposition of conversion fees on land applications breaches legal provisions, justifying cancellation of prior fee notices.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the legality surrounding the imposition of conversion fees on land applications as addressed in Ext P5 and highlighted the applicability of the relevant law citing The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev [2023 (4) KLT 331]. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's claim is backed by judicial precedent and determined that Ext P5 should be nullified with directives for processing the Form 6 application expediently, excluding fees. Key issues addressed include the legality of the fee demand. The Court emphasized that such fees breach established legal provisions, leading to the decision to annul Ext P5 and facilitate timely processing without additional costs.

Table of Content
1. judicial review of fee demands on land applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court observations on applicable law and prevailing precedents. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext P5 and set aside the same ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing and declare that demanding conversion fees for the applied land (Ext P 3) is against the provisions of law.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 2nd Respondent/3rd respondent to complete the proceedings on Exhibit P3 (Form P6 application) submitted by the Petitioner within a time frame in the light of exhibit P5, without demanding fee for conversion.

iv) Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.

v) Such other relief’s that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

vi) Provide cost of the proceedings.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 notice by which the petitioner is directed to pay conversion fee. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev [ 2023 (4) KLT 331]. 3. Heard the learned counsel 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 by the judgment of this Court in Dr. A.V. Sajeev ‘s case (supra). If that is the case, Ext.P5 can be set aside, and there can be a direction to process Form-6 application, without insisting conversion fee. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Ext.P5 is set aside.

ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised o process Form-6 application, without insisting any conversion fee, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a 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