REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. A.V.SAJEEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the State, we need to consider the question, whether an owner of two different plots of land purchased through separate documents prior to 31/12/2017, is liable to pay fees for regularisation under Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008(hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Act') for the reason that plots are lying contiguous and the total extent exceeds 25 cents of land. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that no such fees is payable. It is challenging this judgment, the State has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner purchased 7.59 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/1 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The writ petitioner also purchased 3.23 Ares of land in Sy.No.226/2 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk, which is lying contiguous to the above property. The properties were purchased as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds dtd. 10/2/2011 and 30/4/2011. These plots remained as one compact single plot. Admittedly, these plots are converted land and in the BTR, the land was classified as 'nilam' except the 3.23 Ares of land covered by a document dtd. 30/4/2011.

(3.) The State of Kerala brought an amendment to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the 'Act') and incorporated it under Sec. 27A. Sec. 27A of the Act permits the owner of the converted land to regularise his land on payment of stipulated fees fixed by the Government. The Government, accordingly, prescribed the fees. As per the schedule for payment of fees, the writ petitioner who is the land owner is bound to pay the fixed fee as prescribed.