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) 14097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SAFIYA MANNINGACHALIL – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7568 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.RAKESH
For the Respondents: Government Pleader

The court reiterated the applicability of judicial precedents in determining fee obligations for construction permits.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges the imposition of a fee for construction exceeding 3000 Sq.feet, referencing the judicial precedent of Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. As the court found in favor of the petitioner based on this precedent, it directed the processing of the Form-6 application without the fee. The outcome is contingent on the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.

Table of Content
1. fee imposition for construction must align with judicial precedents. (Para 1 , 2)
2. importance of judicial precedent in current case interpretation. (Para 3)
3. court's directive on application processing related to fee. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the records leading up to Exhibit P1 and set aside the condition imposing fee of Rs.5,90,200/- for construction of building exceeding 3000 Sq.feet;

ii. Declare that in view of the judicial precedents of this Hon’ble court, the petitioner is not liable to pay any fee for construction of a building exceeding

3000 Sq.feet;

iii. Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents;

iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (SIC)

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 by which the petitioner was directed to pay a fee of Rs.5,90,200/- for construction of a building exceeding 3000 Sq.feet. The petitioner relied on the decision reported in Abad builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala [ 2025 (1) KHC 306 ].

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

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner in the decision reported in Abad builders Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra). If that is the case, the prayer in this writ petition can be allowed. The Government Pleader submitted that the decision in Abad builders Pvt. Ltd.’s case is challenged before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal No.495/2025. Therefore, I make it clear that the direction issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.

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

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to process the Form-6 application, without insisting fee for the building, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. It is also made clear that the direction issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.

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