Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. B.G.HARINDRANATH (SR.) SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.) AMITH KRISHNAN H. GOWRI DEV P.DEVIKRISHNA AHANAA MUHAMMED
For the Respondent:BY ADV. K.B.ARUNKUMAR SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SHRI.S.RENJITH, SPL. G.P. TO A.A.G SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

The legal judgment clearly establishes that the imposition of a fee for buildings exceeding 3000 square feet under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is ultra vires the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The court found that the Act does not authorize such a fee, which results in a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution, as it exceeds the authority granted by the parent legislation (!) .

The court emphasized that delegated legislation must conform strictly to the parent Act and cannot extend beyond the powers conferred. Any rule or regulation that exceeds the scope of the parent legislation is considered ultra vires and invalid (!) (!) . The impugned fee was deemed to travel beyond the legislative intent and the specific provisions of the Act, particularly as the Act only contemplates a fee related to the regularization of land conversion, based on the extent of land, not on the area of construction (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the judgment highlights that the fee imposed under Rule 12(9) does not satisfy the criteria of a fee (which should be linked to specific services or benefits conferred) but rather resembles a tax, which must be authorized by law. Since the parent Act does not authorize such a levy, it is unconstitutional and violates the constitutional requirement that taxes or fees must be imposed only by authority of law (!) (!) .

The court also noted that the levy lacks reciprocity and is not tied to any specific benefit or service provided to the landowner, which further invalidates it as a fee (!) . The absence of statutory backing for this levy renders it unconstitutional, as it contravenes the fundamental constitutional principle that no tax or fee can be levied without legal authority (!) (!) .

Finally, the judgment declares that the impugned Note 1 to Rule 12(9) is ultra vires and therefore invalid. Consequently, no demands for the fee shall be made, and any amounts collected shall be refunded. Building permit applications pending consideration shall be processed without insisting on this fee, and existing collections shall be reimbursed (!) (!) .

In summary, the court's ruling underscores that any fee or levy beyond what is explicitly authorized by the parent legislation, particularly if it resembles a tax, is unconstitutional. The authority to impose such fees must be explicitly granted by law, and any excess or unauthorized levy is liable to be declared ultra vires and invalid.