Court affirms prior rulings that rule imposing conversion fees is unlawful, pending higher court review.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“I. Quash Exhibit-P4 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari insofar as it demands conversion fee as a precondition for allowing Exhibit-P3 application;

II. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is not liable to make any payment as provided under Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2018;

III. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to issue orders allowing Exhibit-P3 application without the petitioner being compelled to make any payment in terms of Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules;

IV. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2018 framed under Rule 12 (9) is ultra-virus the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008 to the extent it imposes levy of fee of @ Rs. 100/- for one square foot;

V. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. as provided under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2018;

VI. To dispense with translated copies of the documents in vernacular language; and VII. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ;” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a fee notice issued demanding additional fee for the construction of a building above 3000 sq.ft. Petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors [2025 (1) KHC 306] .

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that, the point raised by the petitioner is covered in her favour in Abad Builders’ case (supra). The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Abad Builders’ case (supra) is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and W.A.No.495/2025 is pending. If that is the case, the directions issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in W.A.No.495/2025.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

“The 2^nd respondent is directed to process Ext.P3 Application without insisting fee for the building if it is otherwise in order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”