AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P12 notice issued by the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.67,26,938/- for
the consideration of an application submitted by the petitioner for use of the property for purposes other than paddy cultivation. It is submitted that the
petitioner is a statutory body which had purchased 6.43 Ares of property in Survey No.339/1 and 342/1 of Ernakulam village, Kanayannur Taluk. It is
contended that the properties had originally been acquired by the Government of Kerala for the 'Kaloor Town Planning Scheme' of the GCDA. The
property was described as Nilam in the revenue records, but was shown converted dry land in the data bank. It is submitted that the petitioner had
earlier approached this Court and by Exhibit P9 judgment this Court had found that the property was a part of a Town Planning Scheme promoted by
the GCDA and that the land had been acquired specifically for the said purpose. Referring to the affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, this Court
had set the petitioner at liberty to approach the competent authority for correction of revenue records, which was directed to be considered in
accordance with law. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P10 representation before the RDO seeking change of
the nature of land in the revenue records. By Exhibit P10(a), the petitioner was required to submit an application under Section 27A of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (2008 Act for short). Thereafter, by Exhibit P12 dated 10.7.2020, the petitioner was required to
pay the fees.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not required to file any application under Section 27A of the 2008 Act in view of
the fact that Exhibit P9 judgment specifically covers the issue and directs the consideration of the petitioner's request for change of the nature of the
land in the revenue records. It is submitted that a permission, as contemplated under Section 27A is, therefore, absolutely unnecessary in the
petitioner's case, in view of the fact that the property stands acquired by the Government for a Town Planning Scheme and that there is a deemed
conversion of the land as dry land as is evident from Exhibit P9.
Though the matter was repeatedly adjourned for instructions, no statement/counter affidavit had been placed on record by the learned Government
Pleader.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko [2021 (1) KLT 232] had specifically considered the effect of an
acquisition for a Town Planning Scheme of the GCDA and had held that after such acquisition, the property cannot be said to be paddy land. In
Exhibit P9 judgment also, this Court had held that since the property was a part of a Town Planning Scheme promoted by the GCDA and the land had
been acquired for the purpose of developing and allotting to individuals and entities under the said Scheme, the property cannot be construed to be
wetland and all that is required is a change in the revenue records.
In the above view of the matter, the stand taken in Exhibit P10 and P12 that an application under Section 27A of the 2008 Act is called for in the
petitioner's case is completely unjustified. In view of the fact that a circular dated 23.7.2021 stands set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in Baby
v. District Collector, [2021(6) KLT 316], I am of the opinion that the demand for fees is completely unjustifiable, even in the case of an application
under Section 27A.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Exhibits P10 and P12 are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to effect the changes in the
revenue records in respect of the property without insisting on the payment of any fees. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondents for
effecting the corrections in the revenue records within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.