Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MOHAMMAD SAVAD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU, SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Property conversion fee demands must not aggregate separate property titles; each title must be treated independently in fee assessments.
Headnote:Statutory provisions related to property conversion fees were scrutinized in light of the petitioner’s challenge against the demand in Exhibit.P9. The petitioner contended that two separate properties should not be aggregated for fee assessment, relying on a precedent from this Court. The findings affirmed that the impugned order lacked merit, leading to the directive for processing the application without demanding the conversion fee. The ruling emphasized the procedural obligations of the authorities in adherence to legal norms. The primary issue framed centers around the legality of the conversion fee demand in relation to separate property titles. The Court concluded that the aggregation of properties for fee assessment violated established principles, thus warranting the annulment of the contested order. Accordingly, the Court set aside Exhibit.P9 and mandated the timely processing of the Form-6 application without the imposition of the conversion fee, ensuring compliance within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the liability for conversion fees based on separate titles. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal reasoning supporting the cancellation of the fee demand. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i) “Call for the records leading to Exhibit.P9 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.
ii) Declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any fee demanded as per Exhibit.P9 towards conversion of property having an extent 7.29 ares situated in Survey No. 347/6-22 of Kadungalloor Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District iii) Exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of documents in vernacular language and iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 demand for conversion fee for processing Form-6 application. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of two separate properties by two separate title deeds. These two properties cannot be clubbed together for assessing the conversion fee. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Dr. A. V. Sajeev [ 2023 (5) KHC 242 ].
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner. If that is the case, the impugned order can be set aside and there can be a direction to process the Form-6 application, if it is otherwise in order.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : 1) Ext.P9 is set aside.
2) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to process Form-6 application without insisting conversion fee, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of Judgment
18/03/2026
Judgment dictated
18/03/2026
Draft judgment placed
18/03/2026
Final judgment uploaded
18/03/2026
