Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
P. VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO.38471 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Philip J.Vettickattu, Smt.Neenu Bernath, Shri.Saju S. Dominic
For the Respondents: Smt.S.L. Sylaja
Fee demands based on separate land sales cannot be aggregated under the relevant statutory provisions.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, petitions were filed regarding land fee demands. Facts: The petitioner contested fee demands for separate land parcels purchased in 1997 and 2007. Findings: The court ruled that separate sale deeds cannot aggregate fees.
Issues: The court framed the issue on lawful aggregation of land for fee purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that separate properties cannot be aggregated to increase administrative fees.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the fee demands and ordering refunds.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. possession and ownership details of land parcels. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal representation details. (Para 2) |
| 3. court observations on fee aggregation. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be in possession of a total extent of 32½ cents in Survey No.44/1 of Vaniyamkulam 2 Village, purchased by him in the year 1997. Another extent of land – 18 cents in Survey No.44/1 and 44/8 was purchased by him in the year 2007. He submitted applications in Form 6 (Exts.P6 and P7) under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. He was served with Exts.P17 and P18 directing him to remit the fee even without excluding the 25 cents of land. It is seeking to challenge Exts.P17 and P18, issued as above, that the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.
3. This Court notice that the fee has been demanded as above by adding the lands covered pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 together. In fact, there cannot be any such addition of lands covered by two separate sale deeds, as noticed earlier. This issue has already been decided in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Dr.A.V.Sajeev [2023(4) KLT 331]
In the light of the afore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Exts.P17 and P18.
This Court notices that while admitting this writ petition on
06.12.2023, the petitioner has expressed willingness to remit the fee demanded pursuant to Exts.P17 and P18, subject to the final decision in the matter, which was pending before the Apex Court. In the light of the afore, since the demand pursuant to Exts.P17 and P18 has been set aside, any amounts paid by the petitioner requires to be refunded, while passing fresh orders on Form 6 applications (Exts.P6 and P7) within a period of five months from today.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE
