The imposition of additional fees under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules is subject to judicial review and existing precedents.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Note (1) appended to Fee Schedule of Ext.P12 SRO, by declaring that Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 is ultra vires to the provision of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 to the extent it imposes levy of fee @ Rs.100/- per each and every Sq. Ft, exceeding the floor area of 3000 Sq. Ft.

ii. Declare that being the owner of unnotified land covered by Ext.P9 application, the petitioner is not liable to pay the additional amount remarked as per Ext. P6 Order as fee for the buildings proposed to be constructed on the land, the nature of which is sought to be changed, and to quash Ext.P6 Order to the extent it imposing an additional fee of Rs. 100 per square feet for any building proposed to be constructed exceeding 3000 Sq Ft., by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11 Demand Notice issued by the 5th Respondent Secretary of the 4^th Respondent Cheekkode Grama Panchayath directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,82,725.88/-, as fee towards construction of a building proposed to be constructed exceeding 3000 Sq. Ft, on the property of the Petitioner which is an unnotified lands.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent Secretary of the 4th Respondent Cheekkode Grama Panchayath to process Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner for obtaining permission for construction of a residential building without insisting fee as per Note (1) appended to the fee schedule as per Rule 12 (9) of the Rules 2008 published vide Ext. P12 SRO.

v. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” [sic]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 demand notice by which the petitioner is directed to pay additional fee for construction of a building exceeding 3000 sq.feet. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (1) KHC 306 ]

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

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' case (supra). But, the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the above judgment is challenged in WA No. 495/2025. If that is the case, the orders passed by this Court will be subject to the final decision in WA No. 495/2025.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :

1) The 4^th respondent is directed to process the building permit application submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting additional fee for the building as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-