The Court ruled that the fee requirement under Rule 12(9) is potentially ultra vires, aligning with precedence in ABAD Builders.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P-6 order dated 17.10.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and set aside the same to the extent it insists on payment of additional fee for the area exceeding 3000 sq. ft. in terms of Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules.

2) Declare that Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable.

3) Declare further that a levy of fee in terms of Rule 12(9) for grant of permit in respect of the area of buildings exceeding 3000 sq. ft. in an unnotified land as defined u/s. 2(xvii A) of the Act and covered by an order in terms of Sec.27 (A) (1), is inconsistent with the provisions of the statute and is beyond the rule making power conferred as per Sec.30 of the Act.

4) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to process the Exhibit P5 application dated 15.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner, pending disposal of this writ petition.

5) Such other reliefs sought for from time to time which this Hon'ble court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case, including costs of these proceedings.

6) Dispense with the production of the English translation of Vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.” [SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in ABAD Builders Private Ltd v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1033] . Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. After hearing both sides, I think, there is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in ABAD Builders case (supra). But, the Government Pleader submitted that the above judgment is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and Writ Appeal No.495/2025 is still pending. If that be the case, the directions issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 4^th respondent is directed to process the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner without insisting any fee for the building as demanded in Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-