Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
RAJEEV SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24568 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH, SMT.RINCY KHADER, SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
For the Respondents: SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE
The judgment clarified that a petitioner is not liable for permit fees due to prior case rulings striking down the relevant fee requirement, conditional on ongoing appeals.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 - Section 27A, Rule 12(9) - The petitioner, owner of converted land, challenged the fee for a building permit imposed as per Rule 12(9); previous case ruling struck down the fee requirement. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court considered the implications of legal precedents on administrative actions regarding fee assessments, particularly in the context of prior rulings.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns converted land but is classified as ‘Nilam’ in records, submitted application under the Act, prior orders require fee payment for building permit.
Findings of Court:
The previous ruling in Abad Builders struck down the fee, allowing the application to proceed without payment.
Issues: The main issue was regarding whether the petitioner must pay the fee for the building permit given the legal precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the petitioner was not liable for fees considering the judgment in Abad Builders, with the condition of pending appeals influencing future liability.
Result: Writ petition closed, fee liability subject to the outcome of pending writ appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's interim directive on application without fees. (Para 3) |
| 2. final ruling on pending liability regarding fees. (Para 5) |
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for building permit without insisting for payment of any fee in respect of the proposed building @ Rs.100/- per square feet for the plinth area in excess of 3000 square feet under Note 1 to the Schedule under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules , 2008 (' Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4 Ares and 68 Sq.Metres of land in Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 document and P3 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a converted land. However, the property was classified as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records. To change the category of the property in the revenue records, the petitioner has submitted a Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Act and Rules. Even though, by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the application stands allowed, the petitioner has been directed to remit fee in respect of the proposed building at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet for the plinth area exceeding 3000 square feet. In Abad Builders Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others ( 2025 (1) KLT 310 ), this Court has struck down Note 1 to the Schedule under Rule 12(9) of the Rules as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. In light of the striking down of Note 1, the petitioner is not liable to pay any fee. Therefore, the 5th respondent may be directed to process the petitioner’s application for building permit without insisting for payment of any fee. Hence, the writ petition.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 4.7.2025, this Court admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order, directing the 5th respondent to process the application for building permit without insisting for payment of any fee in view of the law laid down by this Court in Abad Builders Private Ltd.’s case (supra)
4.Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that, as the judgment in Abad Builders Private Ltd.’s case (supra) is challenged in W.A. No.495/2025 and the same is pending consideration and not withstanding the 5th respondent issuing the building permit, the petitioner’s liability to pay fee shall be subject to the result of the writ appeal.
On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, especially the law laid down by this Court in Abad Builders Private Ltd.’s case (supra) and that the building permit has been issued, I close the writ petition, by making it clear that the petitioner’s liablity to pay fee in respect of the proposed building would be subject to the result of W.A.No. 495/2025.
