The court quashed an arbitrary additional fee demand and directed the consideration of a building permit application based on established precedents.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 (to the extent of clause 2 of the terms and conditions) issued by the 2^nd respondent and Ext.P9 demand made by the 3^rd respondent and quash and set aside the impugned demand for payment of additional fee of Rs.100/- per square foot for the built-up area exceeding 3000 sq.ft. imposed thereunder as arbitrary and ultra vires the relevant provisions of the Act.

ii. Declare that Note 1 to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (insofar as it proposes to levy an additional fee of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for construction exceeding 3000 sq.ft.) is ultra vires the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 and unconstitutional.

iii. Declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional fee under Rule 12(9) or Note 1 thereto for the purpose of obtaining building permit or for construction of the proposed building having a built-up area of 381.85 sq.m. (4110.19 sq.ft.) as per Ext.P8 application iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent Municipality to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 building permit application without insisting on or recovering the impugned additional fee of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for area exceeding 3000 sq.ft., and to grant building permit expeditiously v. Issue such other and necessary orders which are deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.

vi. Dispense with the production of English translation of the documents in the vernacular language."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 demand made by the 3^rd respondent demanding additional fee of Rs.100/sq.ft. for the build up area exceeding 3000 sq.ft. for considering Ext.P8 building permit application. Ext.P9 is issued by the Municipality returning the same and directing the petitioner to produce the receipt showing the payment of conversion fee. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in ABAD Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala &

Others [2025 KLT OnLine 1033] .

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and the learned Government Pleader.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in ABAD Builders’s case (supra). If that be the case, Ext.P9 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the Municipality to consider the building permit application dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P9, if the application is otherwise in order.

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

1. Ext.P9 is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8, if it is otherwise in order, and pass appropriate orders in it, dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-