The court ruled that a fee demanded for an existing building, constructed prior to the relevant Act, is not applicable.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (c) is filed with the following prayers:-

“i. To issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records related to Ext. P5 and to quash the same to the extent demanding fee for the existing building in the subject property of the petitioner.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent, Authorised Officer to finalise Exhibit P4 Form 6 application having No.14/2025/1077213 of the petitioner without insisting for fee for the building sought under Ext. P5 forthwith.

iii. To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of fee for existing building which according to the petitioner was constructed even before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Shiji Joshy Vs.

State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 502 ]

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

4. 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 Shiji Joshy case (supra).

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

1.Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent of demanding fee for the existing building in the subject property of the petitioner.

2.The 1st respondent/authorized officer will finalise Ext.P4 Form 6 application without demanding fee as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-