The court emphasized the necessity of accurate fair value assessment for land use changes and the procedural correctness in calculating associated fees.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to re calculate the fees under section 27 A (3) of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act on the basis of the judgments in Moushmi Ann Jacob V. State Of Kerala , 2023 (5) KHC 339 , Reeta John V. State of Kerala , 2023 KHC 9383 and RDO V. Dr A.V. Sajeev , 2023 (5) KHC 242 .

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 Notice and quash the same.

iii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition.

iv) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is in joint ownership and in possession of

54.62 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.473/11, 473/6 of Kunnamangalam Village, Kozhikode Taluk along with her sister Babita Surendran is the submission. The land is classified as ‘Nilam’ in the Basic Tax Receipt and Revenue Records. The said land was excluded from the data bank, vide Ext.P1 order. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications in Form-7 through online, to change the nature of the land. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per Section 27 A (3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Act, 2008' in short), the petitioner has to pay the prescribed fee for change of nature of land, and the 3rd respondent had decided to allow the petitioner's application and issue Ext.P3 notice demanding Rs.29,27,020/- as fees. The 3^rd respondent, instead of taking the fair value of adjacent garden land of the petitioner's land, had taken the fair value of another land having a highest fair value in that village. Calculating the fees on the basis of the fair value of a garden land lying far away from the land owned by the petitioner is unsustainable is the submission. The amount demanded vide Ext P3 notice was calculated violating the dictum laid down by this Court is the submission. The amount demanded in Ext.P3 is exorbitant and illegal. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This writ petition was filed on 22.05.2024. A statement is filed by the 3rd respondent in this case. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on

24.05.2024, this Court passed the following order:

“The learned Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents. There will be a direction to file a statement.

In the meantime, if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.29,27,020/- as directed in Ext.P3, the respondents will process Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders on the same. It is made clear that the above payment will be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment in Moushmi Ann Jacob V. State Of Kerala ( 2023 (5) KHC 339 ) In case the writ petitioner succeeds, the amount now being paid will have to be refunded.

Post on 28.06.2024.”

Based on the same, the petitioner paid the amount.

5. Thereafter, the case came up for consideration for final hearing. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader, this Court passed the following order on 25.11.2025. The same is extracted hereunder:

“The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Ext. P5, the Village Officer certified that the fair value is to be taken based on the property in Re-Sy. No.471/3. As per Ext.P6 the Revenue Divisional Officer without any basis & without considering Section 2 (vi) A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & wetland Act,