The Kerala High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to pass appropriate orders on Form 6 applications submitted by the petitioners without insisting on payment of fee.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman heard the petitions prayed for the consideration of the application submitted by petitioners under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 without insisting on payment of fees.
It is submitted before the High Court that the petitioners are owners in possession of the property, the extent of property in both these cases is below 25 cents. It is submitted that the property was purchased from the prior owner and the extent of the property was identical. It is, therefore, contended that since the extent of the property as on 30.12.2017 was below 25 cents, the petitioners are entitled to consideration of their Form 6 applications, without payment of any fee as provided in Section 27A of the 2008 Act and Rule 12(9) and the Schedule to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. It is submitted that the respondents are refusing to consider the application on the ground that the properties were purchased on a later date and that therefore, the fees have to be paid.
A statement has been placed on record by the respondent contending that the exemption from payment of fee for the conversion of the property is provided only to specific extent of property which are below 25 cents each. It is contended that since the petitioners had purchased the properties after 2017, they are not entitled to the exemption. It is contended that even if properties having a lesser extent is purchased after 2017, the benefit of conversion without fee will be lost.
Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, the Court noted that Section 27A of the 2008 Act provides for application seeking permission for use of unnotified land for other purposes. It is specified that land below 25 cents can be converted without payment of fees.
Further, the Court noted that circular dated 23.7.2021 has been set aside by the Court in its entirety in the decision reported in Baby v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316].
With regard to the clarification which is relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the High Court noted that the clarifications are not in the form of either a circular or a Government Order and they are only communications issued by individual officers apparently to queries raised with regard to the applicability of the exemption.
Since the said communications are not orders issued by the Government, the High Court opined that they cannot have any applicability or operation over and above the statutory provisions or the executive Government Orders validly issued on the subject.
A reading of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Schedule as well as the Government Order, the Court held that the exemption would be lost only in case there is a transaction after 30.12.2017 by which, a property having a larger extent is fragmented to make the individual parcels of land of an extent of less than 25 cents. The contention that any property purchased after December, 2017 would loss the exemption even when the said property was less then 25 cents in extent even prior to such transaction cannot be accepted in view of the specific language of the Act, the Rule and the Schedule.
In the above view of the matter, the Bench opined that the contentions raised in the statement are completely untenable. The communications issued, which do not have the force of law, cannot stand in the way of consideration of applications in accordance with law.