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) 18024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SIVADASAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD – Respondent
WP(C) NO.34473 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY, SMT.MAYA C.P., SMT.A.P.BEELAMMA, SMT.VIJINA K., SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
For the Respondents: SMT. S.L.SYLAJA,GOVT. PLEADER

The court ruled that fee cannot be demanded for land under 25 cents if fragmentation occurred before the relevant law's trigger date.

Headnote:In this case, the petitioner challenged the fee demand under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, asserting entitlement to benefits for property under 25 cents. The court found the fee demand unsustainable as the property fragmentation occurred before the triggering date of 30.12.2017. The court cited a precedent ruling that supports this position. The demand for the fee was ruled invalid and directed to process the application without insisting on the fee.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges fee demand under land conservation rules. (Para 1)
2. court's ruling based on precedent regarding fee sustainability. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the demand of fee payable under the provisions of Rule 12(9) of the Schedule to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), even with respect to the property, which is the subject matter of an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), filed by the petitioner, having only an extent of 12.55 Ares. According to the petitioner, since the extent is below 25 cents, he was entitled for the benefits as prescribed by the Statute. However, the fee, as above, has been demanded, essentially on account of the stand taken by the respondents that though the extent is below 25 cents, it is only on account of an attempt for the fragmentation of the property made that the extent came below 25 cents. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is to satisfy the fee demanded.

2. Heard Sri.Arul Muralidharan, learned counsel, representing Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader, for the respondents.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Sumesh U.

v. RDO, Palakkad and Ors. [ 2023(3) KHC 431 ] has considered a similar issue, holding that it is only in a situation where the fragmentation of the property took place after 30.12.2017, the fee could be demanded even with respect to the said property. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the document pursuant to which the petitioner came into possession was executed on 07.08.2013 (Ext.P1). If that is the case, the demand for the fee pursuant to Ext.P6 cannot be sustained.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6. There will be a direction to the first respondent to process the application filed under Section 27A of the Act, without insisting for the fee payable thereunder.

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