The court mandates that previously authorized land conversions under the KLU Order exempt the corresponding area from fees under the Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. T.R. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is stated to be in ownership and possession of an extent of 15.31 Ares in Re.Sy. No. 589/4 in Block No.29 of Kaduthuruthy Village. According to the petitioner, the afore property has been described as ‘Nilam’ in the Village records. He also states that in the year 1993, pursuant to Ext.P3, the petitioner obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the “KLU Order”) for converting 10 cents of land out of the afore extent for the construction of his residential house. However, since the balance property continues in the village records as Nilam, he submitted Ext.P4 application in Form-6 seeking to change the nature of the property. However, according to the petitioner, on account of an inadvertent error, while filing Ext.P4 application, the extent of the property was shown as 15.31 Ares. On that basis, the RDO has now issued Ext.P5 order dated 14.6.2023, directing the petitioner to satisfy the fee payable under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the entire extent of 15.31 Ares.

3. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P5 issued as above, essentially because:

(i) the RDO ought to have reduced an extent of 25 cents while demanding fee, with reference to the principles laid down by a learned Single Bench of this Court in Moushmi Ann Jacob v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (5) KHC 339 ]

(ii) In any event, since 10 cents of the property is already covered by the KLU Order at Ext.P3, at least reduction to that extent requires to be ordered while seeking to demand fee payable pursuant to the provisions of the Act.

4. As regards the entitlement for exemption up to the extent of 25 cents, the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [ 2025 (2) KLT 26 ] has decided the issue against the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge raised on that account cannot be accepted.

5. At the same time, as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for reduction of 10 cents of property covered by Ext.P3, this Court notices the judgment in Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George [2020 (1) KHC 865], wherein this Court has categorically found that with respect to the extent of property covered by an order under KLU Order, there is no separate requirement for obtaining an order under the provisions of Section 27A of the Act.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the demand of fee pursuant to Ext.P5 requires to be revisited to that extent. In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the RDO to reconsider the fee payable by the petitioner after reducing the area covered by the order under KLU Order at Ext.P3. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to pay the afore amount after intimation is received from the authorized officer.

Sd/-