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) 16389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BINU PURUSHOTHAMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6057 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.LIZA MEGHAN CYRIAC, SRI.JOLLY JOHN
For the Respondents: GP SMT PREETHA K K

The court reaffirmed the principle that fee calculations must adhere to the stipulated dates as per the governing statutes.

Headnote:This case concerns the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to quash the proceedings related to the fee calculation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The petitioner contends that the fair value was miscalculated as it was not based on the application date. The court found that the fee for conversion had been calculated accurately based on the application date stated in the official documents. The petition ultimately did not find favor with the court, leading to its dismissal.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's demand for writ based on fee miscalculation. (Para 1)
2. cabinet's correct fee calculation based on application date. (Para 2)
3. writ petition dismissed as contentions unfounded. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : i. “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to call for the documents and proceedings leading to and pursuant to Exhibit P-5 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the second respondent to calculate the fees for the purpose of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act by taking the fair value prevailed as on 29.05.2020 in survey No.451/4-45 of Alangad Village Paravur Taluk which is the date of application under Form 6 by the Petitioner made under Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act.

iii. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled for exemption upto 25 cents from payment of any amounts under Section 27 of Kerala Paddy and Wetland Act and need to pay fees under A for conversion only for the remaining extent of land .” [sic]

2. The short point raised by the petitioner is that while calculating fee for processing Form-6 application, the fair value is not considered based on the application date. The Government Pleader takes me through paragraph 4 of the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. It will be better to extract paragraph 4 of the statement.

4. “It is submitted that the fee for conversion is calculated based on the fair value of similar land as on the application date. Report from 3rd respondent, Village Officer is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a). The increase mentioned in the fee notice is the periodical increase ordered by Government of Kerala from time to time. The fee for conversion is calculated based on the application date. The application date is 29.05.2020 and as on that date the fair value is calculated at 200% which is Rs 7,41,000 per Are. Hence no mistake has been occurred in the fee calculation”

3. In the statement, it is clearly stated that the application date is 29.05.2020 and the fee for conversion is calculated based on the application date. If that is the case, that contention will not stand. No other contentions are raised.

Therefore, recording paragraph 4 of the statement, this writ petition is closed.

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