2025:KER:24666 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 34560 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: C. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 73 YEARS,S/O PUZHANKARA RAMAN MENON, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 9261, JADE, SOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL, PURANATTUKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680553 BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. GENTLE C.D. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003 2 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), THRISSUR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 Shri.Renjith.S, Spl.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 2 2025:KER:24666 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Ultilisation Order, 1967, before the 1st respondent, seeking conversion of property having an extent of 1.53 Ares. The said property formed part of the property of the petitioner purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 20.04.1992. The total extent of the property purchased as per Ext.P1 was 13.35 Ares. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner submitted an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation order and according to him the said application was allowed as per order dated 13.11.1992, permitting the petitioner to covert an extent of 25 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.187. Accordingly the petitioner had converted the land and the Form 6 application was submitted by the petitioner in respect of the remaining extent of the property i.e 1.53 Ares. Ext.P3 is the application. 2. After processing Ext.P3 application, the 1st respondent has now issued Ext.P4 notice requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,03,920/- as conversion fee for the property. According to the 1st respondent, as the total extent of the property W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 3 2025:KER:24666 covered as per Ext.P1 sale deed is 33 cents, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption as contemplated under serial No.1 in Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P4. 3. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 1st respondent wherein, the relief sought by the petitioner are opposed. They have incorporated contentions reiterating the stand taken by them. 4. I have heard Sri.Asok Kumar P Kodath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith S, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The only challenge raised in this writ petition pertains to the Ext.P4 order which is a demand of conversion fee. As per the serial No. 1 in the Schedule of the Rules, the property having an extent less than 25 cents is eligible to exemption from payment of the conversion fee. In this case, the petitioner applied for conversion only for 1.53 Ares and therefore going by the extent of the property mentioned in Form 6 application, he is entitled to W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 4 2025:KER:24666 exemption. However the same was rejected only because of the reason that, in the title deed of the petitioner which is Ext.P1, the total extent mentioned is 33 cents and therefore according to the 2nd respondent, he is not eligible for exemption. 6. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, out of the 33 cents of the property, an extent of 25 cents is already permitted to be converted by virtue of the order passed by the Sub Collector Thrissur, under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order as early as on 13.11.1992. The petitioner has specifically pleaded this aspect in the writ petition, and during the course of the hearing, a copy of the said order was also made available before this Court for perusal. If that be so, i.e, if 25 cents of the property is permitted to be converted, the same cannot be taken into account for the purpose of conversion fee. This is because, it is now settled by the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in The Tahasildar v. Renjith George [2025 1 KHC 271] that, in respect of properties where the owner thereof could obtain order under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order before 30.12.2017, the date on which the Section W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 5 2025:KER:24666 27A of the Paddy Land Act was introduced, he cannot be imposed with the liability to undergo the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Paddy Land Act). Therefore, as far as the 25 cents of property covered by the order dated 13.11.1992 issued under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of the proceeding under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and therefore the same cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the conversion fee. 7. Moreover, in this case as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 6 only in respect of 1.53 Ares, which is the property now remaining in his possession which is not covered as per the order of KLU order. Therefore, when considering Form 6 application and calculating the conversion fee, the same has to be reckoned only in respect of the extent of the property mentioned in Ext.P3. Since the 25 cents of property referred to in Ext.P1, is already granted with permission to be utilised for non-agricultural purposes as per W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 6 2025:KER:24666 clause 6 of the KLU Order, the same cannot be considered for fixing the conservation fee. Therefore the stand taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 is not justifiable and hence the matter needs an interference. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4 with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the question of conversion fee after examining the genuineness of the order passed under Clause 6 of the KLU Order on 13.11.1992, a copy of which shall be produced by the petitioner before the said respondent. The identity of the said property shall also be verified and an order in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. After examining the same, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to exemption, the fee collected from the petitioner shall be refunded within a period of three months from the date of such order. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 7 2025:KER:24666 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34560/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1832/92 DATED 20.04.1992 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLOTTED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.01.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 566/2023 DATED 24.03.2023 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2023 DATED 10.02.2023 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL08017401420/2023 DATED 25.03.2023 Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 566/2023 DATED 10.04.2023 Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1- 528854/2023 DATED 18.05.2023 Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.09.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D7- 1/2023/969673 DATED 06.10.2023 Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MOUSHMI ANN JACOB V. STATE OF KERALA [2023(5)KHC 339] (CITED JUDGMENT) DATED 06.02.2023 W.P.C No. 34560 of 2023 8 2025:KER:24666 Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA VS MOUSHMI ANN JACOB [2023(5)KHC 337(DB)] DATED 01.08.2023