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) 21037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHAJI C.D – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 20241 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIREESH MATHEW, SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL, SRI.BABU JOSE, SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT, SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE
For the Respondents: SMT.PREETHA K K, GP

Compliance with land conversion fee regulations is mandatory when area exceeds statutory limits.

Headnote:The judgment concerns WP

(C) No. 20241 of 2025 where the petitioner sought an order to quash the respondents' decision regarding a conversion fee for land exceeding eligibility limits under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2018, citing non-compliance with the law regarding land area limits. The court found that the petitioner is ineligible for fee waivers due to exceeding the specified area and concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's claim. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requested to waive conversion fee. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court examined eligibility based on land area and previous transactions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's claims were found without merit; fee is required. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i.) call for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction;

ii.) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to process the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land without insisting on payment of the conversion fees and allow the same;

iii.) grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

iv.) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;”

2. Ext.P1 order is passed by the 1st respondent permitting the petitioner to convert the land. But the petitioner is directed to remit amount of Rs.17,10,720/- being 10% of the fair value. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 4th respondent, but the same was rejected. According to the petitioner, the petitioner need not pay the conversion fee.

Hence this Writ Petition.

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

4. The counsel for the petitioner re-iterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted below:

“7. Under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules 2018, a conversion fee waiver is only applicable for land parcels not exceeding 25 cents. An examination of the previous sale deed confirms that, as of 30.10.2017, the petitioner's land area exceeded limit of 25 cents. Hence, the applicant was ineligible for free conversion pursuant to the Government circular No. REV-P1/338-

REV dated 23.12.2023.

8. The decision was not made on the basis of classification of land in data bank. So this ground is not also maintainable. The land in question has not exceeded 25 cents in area. But the appeal was dismissed because as per the previous title deeds of the property (the previous title deeds of the applied land) shows that the extent exceeds 25 cents as on 30.12.2017. Eventhough the applicant is in possession of less than 25 cents of land as per the Deed No. 950/2024, the status of the land, ie., the area on the cut- off date disqualifles him from free exemption for conversion. The respondent was acted as per law and as per the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Wet Land Act

2008 and subsequent government orders, in the matter.”

5. In the light of the above statements, I think there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner has to pay the conversion fee.

This Writ Petition is thus dismissed.

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