Fee demands based on separate land sales cannot be aggregated under the relevant statutory provisions.

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