BY AD vs ARUN SAMUEL

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, 1ST FLOOR OF CIVIL STATION, ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DITSRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682030 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682001 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683511 BY ADV. SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR.GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.40803 of 2023 3 JUDGMENT The petitioners herein have filed the captioned writ petition, pointing out that they purchased a property in the year 2007, as evidenced by Ext.P1 sale deed, by fixing the shares of the property separately. Later, they submitted applications in Form No.6, seeking a change in the description of the property, admittedly after 30.12.2017. It is the contention of the petitioners that, though the application as above is submitted after the cut-off date, insofar as the sale deed at Ext.P1 evidences that the property is held, though jointly, with specific reference to the right of the petitioners as stated therein, they are not liable to pay the fee as prescribed.

2. I have heard Sri.Arun Samuel, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.E.G.Gorden, learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. Sri.Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would rely on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v Dr.A.V.Sajeev [2023 (4) KLT 331] to contend that the so-called fragmentation had taken W.P.(C) No.40803 of 2023 4 place, earlier to the cut-off date, and hence, there is no requirement for satisfying the fee. Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader, would also rely on the very same judgment to contend that going by the terms of Ext.P1, there was no fragmentation as pointed out, and so much so, the petitioners were liable to satisfy the fee.

4. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

5. A perusal of Ext.P1, as noticed earlier, would show that, that it is a sale deed executed by the assignor with respect to the sale of the properties mentioned therein, separately to six individuals. A reading of the sale deed would also show that the separate rights as regards the separate six individuals have been pointed out thereunder. This would definitely be a case of “fragmentation” within the meaning of the said term with reference to the requirement to satisfy the fee as against the filing of an application after the cut-off date. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not liable to satisfy the fee, as contended by the respondents herein.

6. This Court notices that Form 6 applications filed as W.P.(C) No.40803 of 2023 5 noticed earlier have been rejected on account of the afore. To the afore extent, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the applications, in accordance with law as discussed and laid down in this judgment. Needless to say that taking note of the age of the petitioners, appropriate orders are to be issued in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE W.P.(C) No.40803 of 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40803/2023 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 18/08/2007 NUMBERED AS 5955/2007 OF SUB REGISTRAR’S OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU. A TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED DATED 20/12/2021 REGISTERED AT SUB REGISTRAR’S OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU. NUMBERED AS A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/02/2022 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR. A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 04/10/2023 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22/11/2023 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/09/2023 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 12/02/2022 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES (AMENDMENT), 2018. A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 24/08/2022 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES (AMENDMENT), 2018. A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 02/11/2022 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE CONSERVATION OF W.P.(C) No.40803 of 2023 7 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 Exhibit P15 Exhibit P16 Exhibit P17 Exhibit P18 PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES (AMENDMENT), 2018. A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 02/11/2022 FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES (AMENDMENT), 2018. A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE STATUS OF EXHIBIT P7 OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE STATUS OF EXHIBIT P8 OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE STATUS OF EXHIBIT P9 OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE STATUS OF EXHIBIT P10 OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1ST SUBMITTED 15/07/2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. THE BY A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2ND SUBMITTED 15/07/2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. THE BY A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3RD SUBMITTED 15/07/2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. THE BY A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4TH SUBMITTED 15/07/2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. THE BY