A.V. SAJEEV Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Jyothish George, Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of 7.59 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/1 and 3.23 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/2 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The properties were purchased as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds dtd. 10/2/2011 and 30/4/2011. The properties are lying adjacent and in Ext.P3 data bank, the properties in Sy.No.226/1 have been included as converted before 2008. The petitioner submits that the properties originally belonged to Vylopilly Tharavadu even before 1950 and there were Kudikidappukars on the property, who were residing in the residential houses constructed therein. Exts.P1 and P2 evidence the above facts. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in the year 2015, a major portion of the buildings was demolished for the purpose of undertaking construction on the properties. Since in the basic tax register the properties covered by two documents Exts.P1 and P2, except 0.35 Ares, are shown as nilam, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application in Form 9 before the 1st respondent for permission to change the nature of the lands. When there was a delay in passing orders, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.8356 of 2021 which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the 1st respondent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent insisted that applications in Form 6 should be filed separately for the lands covered by Exts.P1 and P2. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P10 and P11 Form 6 applications on 26/4/2021. Ext.P12 is the report of the Village Officer, wherein it is stated that the fair value for the property in Sy.No.226/1 will be Rs.7,20,000.00 per Are.

(3.) The Government had issued Ext.P8 Circular on 25/2/2021, whereby it was decided that for applications under Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (2008 Act for short), for extents less than 25 cents, no fee need be imposed. Clause (2) of the Circular says that in cases where properties were lying together and extents of 25 cents or less were separated from such properties after 30/12/2017, the benefit of fee exemption will not apply. Later, by Ext.P14, the Government decided that fee exemption need be granted only in applications submitted on 25/2/2021 or later. However, Ext.P14 Circular has already been held to be unconstitutional in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Baby M.K. & Ors. v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors. [2021 (6) KLT 316]. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P15 directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.45,25,000.00 as fee at the rate of 30% of the fair value. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P15 in the writ petition. At the time of admission, this Court had taken note of the fact that the area sought to be converted in the two applications would together come to 25.871 cents and hence directed the respondents to provisionally accept the proportionate amount of fair value for 0.871 cents of land by which the property exceeds 25 cents and to take further action in accordance with law on the application submitted by the petitioner.