The court established that a petitioner is exempt from fees under specific circumstances regarding land title deeds as defined by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P5 Demand Notice and quash the original of the same as illegal and opposed to law.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding the 1st respondent to proceed with Exhibit P4 Form 6 application and pass orders thereon without insisting for payment of any fees as provided under Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 within a time frame which may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any fees as contemplated under Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 for allowing Exhibit P4 Form 6 application in respect of his 6.67 Ares (16.47 cents) of land comprised in Re-Survey No.302/3-4 and in Resurvey No.302/3-10 in Block No.10 of Chengamanad Village in Aluva Taluk and that going by Schedule of the Paddy Land Rules, the 1st respondent is not entitled to demand any fees from the Petitioner based on Exhibit P4 application and therefore, the demand made by Exhibit P5 demand notice is ex-facie illegal.

iv) Dispense with production of English Translation of document in vernacular languages.

v) Pass such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 fee notice.

According to the petitioner, he need not pay any conversion fee because the property is covered by two documents as evident by Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner also relied the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr.A.V.Sajeev [2023 (5) KHC 242] .

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

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Dr.A.V.Sajeev's case (supra). The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

5. “If a person, at the time of the Government order dated 25.2.2021 has a different holding in the State in a small plot extending to more than 25 cents of land, they would be entitled to the benefit of the first clause for exemption if the land as per the holding covered by different documents is less than 25 cents. The holding as per the exemption has to be understood, to be qualified with reference to the title deeds of the party, the holder of the land. Though in practice, the property may lie contiguous and remain as a single plot, the benefit of exemption would be available to all such persons who hold the land by separate documents and the extent of land is 25 cents or less provided those purchases were prior to 30.12.2017. We also make it clear that those who are holding land beyond 25 cents of land as on 30.12.2017, based on a single title, will not be entitled for such benefit. The only possible interpretation, according to us, is that holding of the land has to be understood with the title deed of the parties concerned who claimed exemption. If the title deed of such holder of land indicates that the land is less than 25 cents of land, the holding covered by the title deed would be entitled for exemption of the fees. This is so also discernible from the circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department on 10.12.2021.”

5. In the light of the above principle, I think the prayer in this writ petition can be allowed.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner :

1) Ext.P5 is set aside.

2) The 1^st respondent is directed to process Form-6 application without insist