Court directs reconsideration of application fees under existing laws and prior judgments, emphasizing timely administration.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

i) Declare that Note (1) appended to Ext P10 fees schedule to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala conservation of Paddy land and wet land Rules is unenforceable and invalid as it is repugnant to the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 .

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P9 demand Notice and quash the same.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay fees prescribed as per Note (1) appended to Ext P10 fees schedule to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala conservation of Paddy land and wet land Rules.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext P7 and P8 applications and issue final orders under section 27 A of Act 28 0f 2008 by change the nature of the land mentioned in Exts.P7 and P8 applications without insisting any fee.

v) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing Ext P6 notice issued by the 5^th respondent."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to the respondents not to insist to pay fee prescribed as per Note (1) appended to Ext.P10 fees schedule to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is covered in favour of the petitioner in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (1) KHC 306 ]. The Government Pleader submitted that the above judgment is challenged before the Division Bench in W.A No.495/2025. If that is the case, the directions issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in W.A No.495/2025. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider Exts.P7 and P8 application without insisting on the fee demanded in Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Based on the decision in Exts.P7 and P8, the 4^th and 6^th respondents will do the needful based on the application submitted by the petitioner for occupancy, within a period of one month from the date on which the orders are produced.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG

5809/13 /KDIS DATED 02.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO WITH TYPED COPY Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.