The Court upheld the right to construct without excessive fees based on plinth area, consistent with underlying legislative intents.

JUDGMENT

This 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 P4 Order, and P12 Notice and quash Condition No.2 in Exhibit P4 which stipulates for payment of fees based on the plinth area of the building proposed to be constructed in the land covered by that orders and quash the original of Exhibit P8 Demand Notice as illegal and opposed to law.

ii)Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding respondents 5 and 6 to proceed with Petitioners’ Exhibit P6 application for building permit without insisting for payment of any amount based on the plinth area of the building in Petitioner’s 3.24 Ares (8 cents) comprised in Survey No.16/2-9 of Kadungalloor Village and direct Respondents 5 and 6 to permit the Petitioner to construct building in her aforesaid land as per the Maximum Permissible Coverage and Maximum Permissible Floor Space Index as provided in Table 6 as per Rule 27 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 without restricting the coverage to 50% of the area of the Petitioner’s plot.

iii)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled for construction of building in her 3.24 Ares (8 cents) comprised in Survey No.16/2-9 of Kadungalloor Village without payment of any fees based on the plinth area of the building and that the stipulation in 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 and declare that Petitioner is entitled to construct building in her aforesaid land as per the Maximum Permissible Coverage which is 65% and Maximum Permissible Floor Space Index as provided in Table 6 as per Rule 27 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 for the Petitioner’s proposed construction which are Commercial cum Residential Occupancy and that Respondent has no right to restrict the coverage to 50% of the area of the Petitioner’s plot.

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 Condition No.2 in Ext.P4 order issued under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘Act 2008’) that, if the proposed construction in her plot exceeds 3000 sq.ft., the petitioner has to remit Rs.100/sq.ft., and the consequential Ext.P12 demand notice issued by the 6^th respondent. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the defect noted in Ext.P8 regarding the coverage of the plot based on the Structure Plan for the Central City of Kochi.

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

4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court inAbad Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Others [2025 KLT OnLine 1033] and also the dictum laid down by this Court in Manoj Kumar P.P. v. Secretary, Thalassery Municipality [2025 (6) KHC 371] .

5. There is no dispute regarding the contention of the petitioner that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Abad Builders’s case (supra). But the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the above judgment is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and Writ Appeal No.495/2025 is 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.

6. As far as the coverage of 50% of the plot area which is