MOHAMMED NIAS C. P.
ABAD BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners seek, among others, a declaration that Note 1 to 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 levying a fee for the area of buildings exceeding 3000 square feet proposed in lands falling under the Act.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. B.G. Harindranath instructed by Sri. Amith Krishnan, Sri. P.K. Soyuz, Sri. K.C. Vincent, Sri. Jacob Sebastian, Sri. P. Sathisan and Sri. Shanavas Khan, on behalf of the petitioners, made the following submissions:
Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala
Aishabeevi v. Superintendent of Police
Additional District Magistrate (Rev) Delhi Admn. v. Siri Ram
Baby M.K. and Others v. District Collector, Ekm. and Others
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others
Bimal Chandra Banerjee and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (1970) 2 SCC 467
Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Others v. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd and Others
Cardamom Marketing Corporation and Another v. State of Kerala and Others
Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam and Another v. Joe Thattil
D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr. Jose Uppani and others
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Another v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and Another
Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (M/s) and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others
Gupta Modern Breweries v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd and Others v. Union of India and Others
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar and others
Jagannath Ramanuj Das and Another v. State of Orissa and Another
Jindal Stainless Limited and Another v. State of Haryana and Others
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala and Others
Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Others v. State of H.P. and Others
LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariumma and another
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others
Mohammed Ashraf v. State of Kerala
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited and Others
Philomina Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Prabhakara Reddy A. and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Vidya Chetal
Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Saji C.M. and others v. State of Kerala and Others
Sant Saran Lal and another v. Parsuram Sahu Alias Kishan Lal Sahu and Others
Shahul Hameed v. Principal Secretary, Local Self Government
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer
State of H.P. and Others v. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and Others
State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. TVL South Indian Sugar Mills Association and Others
State of U.P. and others v. Sitapur Packing Wood Suppliers and Others
Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
The imposition of a fee for building construction exceeding 3000 sq. ft. under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is ultra vires the Act, violating constitutional provisions and ....
The imposition of a fee for buildings exceeding 3000 square feet under Rule 12(9) is ultra vires the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as it exceeds the authority granted by th....
The court ruled that the exemption from reclamation fees applies only to land up to 25 cents, and any excess land is subject to the full fee, emphasizing strict interpretation of notifications.
The Court ruled that the fee requirement under Rule 12(9) is potentially ultra vires, aligning with precedence in ABAD Builders.
Court affirms that applicants should not be compelled to pay fees under specific conservation rules pending appeal outcomes.
Change of user of land - prescription made in the Rules framed in terms of Sec.27A(3) of the Amendment Act, stipulates that the amount to be paid is much lesser than the 50% of the fair value of the ....
The validity of procedural mandates under regulatory frameworks is paramount in adjudicating fee requirements for construction.
The court ruled that fee demands for construction under contested regulations can be set aside pending appeal outcomes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.