SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOHN MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6945 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P., SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI, SHRI.RAKESH S MENON, SMT.SANGHYA RAJ S.
For the Respondents: SRI. S RENJITH

The court affirmed that refund procedures must adhere to prior legal determinations while pending appeals should not obstruct rightful claims.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks to challenge the collection of additional fees deemed unlawful under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008. The court observes that the pending writ appeal regarding a similar issue implies that if a refund is granted, the petitioners may approach the competent authority. Petitioners request to declare fees illegal and for a prompt resolution of their refund application based on prior judgments. The court disposes of the writ petition accordingly.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the legality of additional fees. (Para 1 , 2)
2. pending appeals affect refund procedures. (Para 3)
3. writ petition is disposed based on existing process. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Declare that the collection of additional fee @ Rs. 100/- for buildings exceeding a plinth area of 3000 SQFT is against law, arbitrary and per se illegal;

ii. Call for the records leading to illegal collection of Rs. 3,68,400/- by the 1stRespondent in terms of the plinth area of building under the guise of Note 1 to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 and issue a Writ of certiorari or such other appropriate Writ, orders or directions quashing the demand;

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P-7 application for refund and to allow the same in view of the dictum laid down in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 26] within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

iv. To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;

v. Render such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to refund the conversion fee paid by the petitioners in the light of Ext.P8 judgment.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, Ext.P8 judgment has already been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and Writ Appeal No.495/2025 is pending, and that there is a stay against the refund.

4. If that be the case, this Writ Petition need not be retained here. If the Writ Appeal is disposed of and it is found that the petitioners are entitled to refund, the petitioners are free to approach the competent authority with an appropriate application. In such situation, the appropriate authority will do the needful in accordance with the law.

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top