M. K. SOMASEKHARA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to recall Ext.P3 order and pass fresh orders in his name without insisting on remitting any further conversion fee. Petitioner has sought for other consequential reliefs also.

(2.) Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 2.02 Ares (4.99 cents) of property along with a residential building lying in resurvey no.104/2 of Nadama Thekkumbhagam Village in Ernakulam District obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed on 8/7/2021. Petitioner purchased the above property from one Mr.Anoop R, who obtained the same extent of property as per sale deed No.2814 of 2012 of Tripunithura Sub Registrar Office. There is no fragmentation of property while executing Ext.P1 sale deed. Even though the entire neighbourhood is developed and nature of the land was lying as purayidam and the predecessor-in-interest of the vendor of the petitioner had obtained building permit and had constructed a building in the abovementioned property in the year 2005, in the revenue records, the nature of the property has been shown as nilam instead of purayidam as is evident from Ext.P2 tax receipt. Petitioner contended that the property has remained as fallow for more than 20 years and there is a residential building in the said property which has been constructed based on a valid licence and permit issued by the Panchayat. While so, when Mr. Anoop R. from whom the petitioner purchased the above-mentioned property approached the Panchayat for the purpose of sale of the same, it was informed that the property was shown as nilam instead of purayidam in the revenue records and thereupon Mr.Anoop R. submitted an application in accordance with Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act 2008 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2008) in Form 6 after paying requisite conversion fee. Petitioner was informed by the said Anoop at the time of execution of Ext.P1 sale deed that Form 6 application has already been submitted with respect to the above-mentioned property and it was also informed that he will intimate the concerned officials about the sale of the property. Since no communication was received from the respondents after the submission of the Form 6 application even after the purchase, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and enquired about the status of the same wherein he was informed that Ext.P3 order dtd. 24/3/2022 had already been issued by the 3rd respondent allowing the conversion of the nature of petitioner's property, but the same has been issued in the name of Mr. Anoop R. The contention of the petitioner is that the purchase was on 8/7/2021 and it is only thereafter that the order dtd. 24/3/2022 was issued allowing conversion of nature the petitioner's property, Ext P3 order ought to have been issued in his name. Thereupon, he requested the 3rd respondent to recall Ext.P3 and pass fresh orders in his name. In turn, he was informed that since the petitioner purchased the property after 2017, he has to remit 10% of the fair value of the property for passing fresh orders and for further processing of the application for correction in the records of the 5th respondent. Subsequent to the request made by the petitioner to recall Ext.P3 and to pass fresh orders in his name, the 4th respondent submitted Ext.P4 letter before the 3rd respondent intimating that further action may be taken for issuing Ext.P3 order in the name of the petitioner. The 5th respondent also submitted a detailed report before the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P5 that the property mentioned in Ext.P3 belongs to the petitioner and further action may be taken to recall Ext.P3 order and pass fresh orders in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that Exts.P4 and P5 have not been considered by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter petitioner again represented before the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P6 to expedite the request made by him to recall Ext.P3 and pass fresh orders in his name. Petitioner would further contend that demand for conversion fee is not sustainable in view of the amendment made to the schedule constituted as per Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 as there is no requirement for the payment of fees or charges for conversion upto and inclusive of 25 cents of paddy land, on and with effect from 25/2/2021. Petitioner submits that his property is less than 5 cents which falls within the limit prescribed under the amended schedule of the Rules and further that there is no fragmentation of property while executing Ext.P1 sale deed.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice a communication issued by the Government dtd. 8/6/2023 bearing no.REV-P1/91/2023-REV in connection with the issue regarding the transfer of the property while an application for removing the property from the data bank or for changing the nature of the land was pending consideration. In the said communication, the Government decided that the application could be considered on the basis of a no-objection certificate submitted by the person who has filed the application in this regard and based on the said noobjection certificate the purchaser of the property could submit a further application and the said application would be decided maintaining the seniority.