A conversion fee demand based on property 'Nilam' designation contravenes regulatory provisions when seeking a building permit.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 2.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 224/1-128 in Block No.1 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, has approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P6 issued by the 4^th respondent, the Secretary to the 3rd respondent, requiring the petitioner to pay conversion fee under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, in respect of the building proposed to be constructed.

2. Apparently, Ext.P6 was issued on the reason that the property of the petitioner is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. However, the case of the petitioner is that, the application for building permit which was the subject matter of the Ext.P6, was submitted by him to construct an additional floor on the existing building, without any increase in the plinth area on the ground floor.

3. Earlier, when the matter came up for consideration on 05.08.2024, an interim order was passed by this Court staying the demand made by Ext.P6 and further direction was issued to the Corporation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for permit, if it is otherwise in order.

4. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the interim order, the application of the petitioner was processed and a permit is issued. Now what remains is decide the question regarding the amount demanded as per Ext.P6.

5. As far as the said issue is concerned, this court inAbad Builders Private Limited vs State Of Kerala reported in2025 KLT OnLine 1033 held that Rule 12(9) read with Note (1) to the schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, to the extent it demands conversion fees for the building, is ultra wires of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the demand made in Ext.P6 is not legally sustainable. Besides, the fact the property of the petitioner is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, will not also preclude the petitioner from obtaining the permit for constructing an upper floor on the existing building, in the light of the observations made by this Court inAbdul Salam C.K. & Another v. State of Kerala and Ors reported in2021 (6) KHC 277.

In the light of the legal proposition laid down in the decisions referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P6 and by making the interim order passed by this Court on 05.08.2024 absolute.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE SM/1003 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24253/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 707/2012 DATED

02.03.2012 OF MARADU SRO Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

25.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER , POONITHURA VILLAGE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8010/2024 DATED

18.06.2024 OF THE 2 ND RESPONDENT RDO Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 09.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4 TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE INTIMATION/ NOTICE DATED 18.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE