ORDER :

P. B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Petitioner seeks, among others, a declaration that Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (the Rules) framed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) is ultra vires the provisions of the Act to the extent it provides for levy of a fee for the area of buildings exceeding 3000 square feet proposed in lands defined as un-notified lands under the Act.

2. The Writ Petition was admitted to file on 03.02.2021 and the same was brought up by the petitioner after service of notice on 26.03.2021 for the interim relief sought in the matter. An adjournment was sought by the State on 26.03.2021 for hearing on the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief, and the matter was accordingly adjourned initially to 29.03.2021 and then to 30.03.2021. On 30.03.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General were heard on the prayer for interim relief.

3. The facts relevant for considering the prayer for interim relief are the following : The petitioner is a builder. They own a land within the limits of Kochi Corporation (the Corporation) measuring 17.62 Ares, of which 6.93 Ares was shown earlier in the revenue records as ‘nilam’. This 6.93 Ares of land was however not notified as paddy land or wetland under the Act and as such, the same is a land falling within the definition of “unnotified land” in terms of the provisions of the Act. The predecessors of the petitioner, in the circumstances, applied for permission under S.27A(1) of the Act to utilise the said land for other purposes, and the application has been allowed by the competent authority on 23.1.2020 as per Ext.P2 order. Later, pursuant to the said order, the said extent of land has been reclassified in the revenue records as ‘purayidom’ as provided for under S.27C of the Act. The petitioner purchased the land only thereafter on 25.06.2020. Later, on 8.9.2020, the petitioner obtained Ext.P10 building permit from the Corporation for construction of a building in the land owned by them, having an area of 670.78 square metres. Subsequently, they submitted an application before the Corporation for a revised building permit for construction of a building having an area of 9274.44 square metres in the said land. Ext.P13 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this regard. It is stated by the petitioner that since a portion of the land where the petitioner proposes to put up the building is an unnotified land in terms of the Act and since the petitioner is making use of the said land for construction of the building on the strength of Ext.P2 order, the petitioner is obliged to pay fee at the rate of Rs.100/- per square foot for the area of the building exceeding 3000 square feet in terms of Rule 12(9) of the Rules. It is also stated by the petitioner that earlier in the matter of obtaining Ext.P2 order, the predecessors of the petitioner have paid only the fee payable in terms of the said rule for the land covered by the application as there was no proposal then to put up any building in the land. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Corporation is now insisting the petitioner to pay fee for the area of the building exceeding 3000 square feet as provided for under Rule 12(9) also for processing Ext.P13 application. The petitioner is challenging Rule 12(9) of the Rules to the extent it provides for levy of fee as aforesaid in the above background on the ground mainly that the same to the extent aforesaid is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. The interim relief sought by the petitioner, in the circumstances, is for a direction to the Corporation to process Ext.P13 application without insisting payment of fee prescribed in terms of Rule 12(9) for the building proposed in the land.

4. Rule 12(9) is the provision in the Rules prescribing the fee payable for grant of permission under S.27A(1) of the Act to utilize lands falling under the definiti