LexSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus MOUSHMI ANN JACOB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1273 : 2025 INSC 255 State of Kerala & Ors. v. Moushmi Ann Jacob (Civil Appeal No(s). 3178-3179 of 2025) 20 February 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether under Notification dated 25.02.2021 issued under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, a land owner with more than 25 cents is liable to pay conversion fee for the entire land holding or would the conversion fee be calculable for the portion of land that is in excess of 25 cents. Headnotes† Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Notification dated 25.02.2021 exempted landowners holding up to 25 cents from paying conversion fee – Respondent, owner of 14.57 acres, directed to pay conversion fee on total extent of land – Writ Petition against interpretation of Notification in High Court – Single Judge held fee should be calculated only on extent of land exceeding 25 cents – Judgment upheld by Division Bench and subsequent review dismissed – Dismissal of review petition challenged – Appeal allowed – Exemption provision to be strictly construed – Notification creates two distinct categories – Exemption available only if holding does not exceed 25 cents – Conversion fee to be calculated on entire land if holding exceeds 25 cents – High Court erred in merging the two categories – Classification held reasonable and consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent liable to pay conversion fee on entire extent of land: Held: Respondent, owner of 14.57 acres land, sought change of nature of land to secure education loan – Competent authority directed payment of Rs.1,74,840 as conversion fee, being 10% of fair value of entire land – In Writ Petition, Respondent challenged the fee amount contending that 25 cents was exempt under Notification dated 25.02.2021 under the Kerala Conservation of * Author 1274 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Fee ought to be calculated only on land exceeding 25 cents — Single Judge held fee should be calculated only on extent exceeding 25 cents and not entire 14.57 acres – Same upheld by Division Bench and subsequent review dismissed by impugned order – Appeal allowed. Notification issued in furtherance of an Act is delegated legislation – Such subordinate legislation lacks the same level of immunity as plenary law and must yield to it – Instant dispute concerns a Notification granting exemption from payment of fees – Person claiming exemption must establish entitlement – Such Notification must be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the literal rule of interpretation – Plain reading of Notification shows that it creates two distinct categories: those with land up to 25 cents and those with land in excess of 25 cents – Object of exempting people belonging to the former class from payment of fee is to enable them to have ease in constructing without being burdened with conversion fee of the land – Nothing to show State did not have necessary competence to create two classes – High Court erred in fusing two distinct categories – Competent authority specified different fee categories proportionate to land, signifying intent to form distinct classes – State is permitted reasonable classification, provided it bears a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved – Principles of Article 14 to guide all State actions, including administrative, such as the issuance of Rules or Notifications. [Paras 2-3, 13-20] Reliance also placed on Rule 12 Clause 9 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which states no fee is payable up to 25 cents, and 10% of the fair value is payable for land above 25 cents up to 1 acre – Respondent liable to pay conversion fee on total extent of land in ownership. [Paras 23-25] Case Law Cited Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Trivandrum v. K. Kunjabmu, 1979 INSC 249 : [1980] 2 SCR 260 : (1980) 1 SCC 340; C.C.E. v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, 2010 INSC 785 : [2010] 13 SCR 820 : (2011) 1 SCC 236; Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co., 2018 INSC 646 : [2018] 7 SCR 1191 : (2018) 9 SCC 1; Balram Kumawat v. Union of Indian & Ors., 2003 INSC 426 : [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 24 : (2003) 7 SCC 628; Natural Resources Allocation, In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, 2012 INSC 428 : [2012] 9 SCR 311 : (2012) 10 SCC 1 – relied on. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1275 State of Kerala & Ors. v. Moushmi Ann Ja
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.