The court determines that fee demands for land conversion must align with statutory provisions, overriding conflicting municipal conditions.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P6 notice and quash the original of the same which requires the Petitioner to remit the amount demanded therein based on plinth area of the existing building in the Petitioner’s property covered by Exhibit P5 application.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding the 2nd respondent to proceed with Petitioner’s Exhibit P5 Form 6 application without insisting for payment of any amount based on the plinth area of the existing building in the Petitioner’s 5.71 Ares of land (14.10 cents) of land comprised in Survey No. 529/1-9 (2.78 Ares) and Survey No. 529/2-4 (2.93 Ares) of Thrikkariyoor Village.

iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled for a conversion Order on Exhibit P5 Form 6 application pertaining to his 5.71 Ares of land (14.10 cents) of land comprised in Survey No. 529/1-9 (2.78 Ares) and Survey No. 529/2-4 (2.93 Ares) of Thrikkariyoor Village without payment of any fees based on the plinth area of the existing building and that the stipulation in Rule 12(9) and Note (1) to the Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 for payment of fees based on the plinth area of the building is ultra vires Section 27A (1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 .

iv) Dispense with production of English translation of Exhibits in vernacular languages v) Pass such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition in Ext.P7 order by which it is stated that the exemption from fee will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025. According to the petitioner, the ABAD Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 2025 (1) KHC 306 ) case is not applicable in this case and it is covered by the judgment inShijy Joshy v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC

502.

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

4. Admittedly, the fee is demanded for an existing building. If that be the case, the dictum laid down by this Court inShijy Joshy’s case (supra) is applicable in this case and notABAD Builders case (supra). Admittedly, there is no appeal againstShijy Joshy’s case. The Government Pleader submitted that theShijy Joshy’s case (supra) is reviewed. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same principle is laid down by this Court inReeta John v. State of Kerala ( 2023 (6) KLT 472 ). If that be the case, the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed.

Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the following manner: