SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MATHAI @ ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43156 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.SANTHOSH BABU
For the Respondents: SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Court ruled against the imposition of additional fees based on precedent, affirming petitioner's rights under established laws.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks to quash Exhibit P3 and drop proceedings following it. The petitioner was directed to pay an additional amount for property use change as per section 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules. The court found the point raised covered in favor of the petitioner by previous decisions. Thus, Ext.P3 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. requesting to quash imposed fees on property use change. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 3)
3. court observes coverage by precedents. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 forthwith.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3.

iii. Petitioners also prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispense with the requirement of production of translation of documents produced in vernacular language for the time being and the petitioners undertakes to produce the translation as and when demanded by this Hon’ble Court.

iv. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. (SIC)

2. Petitioner's application for change of nature of his property having an extent of 14.21 Ares so as to use the same for other purposes was allowed by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner complied with the statutory requirement of payment of fee in accordance with law is the submission. Later, as per Ext.P3, the petitioner was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,07,100/- being the fee payable for the area of building exceeding 3000 Sq.ft. proposed in unnotified lands in the light of section 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules . The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is illegal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader submitted that the point raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the decisions reported in Shiji Joshy v. State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 502 ] andReeta John v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 9383]. If that is the case, I think the impugned order can be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top