The court determined that existing building fees are not required under specific circumstances, relying on prior judgments.

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. P4 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 P3 Form 7 application having No.21/2024/1077213 of the petitioner without insisting for fee for the building sought under Ext. P4 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.

iv. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of fee by Ext.P4 order for the existing building which was constructed in the year 2018 by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner also relied on the judgments of this Court in Shiji Joshy v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 502] and Reeta John v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC OnLine 9383].

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Shiji Joshy’s case (supra) and Reeta John’s case (supra).

5. If that be the case, the petitioner need not pay fee as far as the existing building is concerned. But, the petitioner is bound to pay fee as far as the land is concerned.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

The 1^st respondent is directed to process Ext.P3 Form-7 application without insisting fee for the existing building, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-