Application of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 regarding fee assessments in family partitions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of 5 Are 71.65 Sq.m. of land, comprised in re-survey No.1-21-847/1 of Katcheri Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The property was included as a “nilam” in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), though the same was not included in the data bank. The property was the subject matter of a family partition, as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 14.03.2018 between the petitioner and his sister. The petitioner’s share of the property is stated to be an unnotified land. Therefore, he submitted an appropriate application in Form 6, seeking permission for utilising the property for other purposes. By Ext.P4 dated 23.09.2022, the 4^th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kozhikode, directed the petitioner to remit the fee prescribed under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . It is seeking to challenge the afore, that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.K. Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner contends that there was no justification for directing the petitioner to satisfy the afore fee, insofar as the extent of the property was admittedly below 25 cents. The fee, as above, is sought to be demanded by reckoning the extent of the property prior to the partition, as per the prior document. True, as per the prior document, the property is in excess of 25 cents. Therefore, ultimately, the question is as to whether the so-called fragmentation is for defeating the intention of Section 27A . A reading of the title deed at Ext.P1 would show that it is a family partition, and actually, there is no transfer between the parties, of the property in question. When that be so, the petitioner is justified in contending that he was entitled for the benefit available for the properties having an extent of less than 25 cents.

4. The same issue has already been considered and decided by this Court against the State in Sumesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (3) KHC

431]

In the light of the afore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P4. There will be a direction to the RDO Kozhikode, to consider the petitioner’s application in Form 6, without insisting for payment of fee, as above.

Sd/-