Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B G Harindranath Adv.
For the Respondent: Unknown (Addl. AG)

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case Abad Builders Private Limited vs. State of Kerala:

• Case Details: The case is W.P.(C) No. 2785 of 2021, decided by the High Court of Kerala on 17-05-2021, involving a dispute between Abad Builders Private Limited (Appellant) and the State of Kerala (Respondent) (!) (!) .
• Core Legal Issue: The petitioner challenged Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, arguing it is ultra vires the parent Act because it levies a fee based on the area of the building proposed in "un-notified lands" (!) (!) .
• Statutory Context: The challenge specifically targets Section 27A(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which empowers the competent authority to grant permission for utilizing un-notified lands for residential or commercial purposes (!) (!) (!) .
• Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the purpose of Section 27A is to ensure no disruption to water flow to neighboring paddy lands; therefore, the area of the building is irrelevant to the permission granted, and levying a fee (Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. for areas exceeding 3000 sq. ft.) based on building area is inconsistent with the legislative intent (!) (!) (!) .
• Respondent's Argument: The Additional Advocate General argued that the petitioner's predecessors had already accepted an order (Ext.P2) under Section 27A(1) subject to paying fees as per Rule 12(9), and the petitioner, claiming under them, is estopped from challenging the rule (!) .
• Court's Reasoning: The Court held that while the permission under Section 27A is a service rendered by the government, the fee must be consistent with the Act's object. Since the Act aims to protect water flow to paddy lands, the extent of the building is extraneous to the permission; thus, levying a fee based on building area cannot be construed as consistent with Section 27A (!) (!) .
• Ultra Vires Finding: The Court concluded that Rule 12(9), to the extent it prescribes a fee based on the area of buildings exceeding 3000 square feet in un-notified lands, is prima facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act and void (!) (!) (!) .
• Interim Relief: Although interim orders are rarely issued against rules presumed to be intra vires, the Court granted interim relief because the rule was found to be ex facie ultra vires (!) .
• Final Order: The Corporation was directed to process the petitioner's application (Ext.P13) for a revised building permit without insisting on the payment of the fee prescribed in the impugned Rule 12(9), subject to the final decision in the Writ Petition (!) (!) .