Municipalities cannot impose arbitrary additional fees on building permits that contravene established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Quash Exhibit-P3 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

II. Quash the condition in Exhibits-P1 and P2 which provides for collection of fee at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square feet for the area exceeding 3000 square feet when the landowner wants to make constructions in the plot;

III. 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;

IV. Declare that the Respondents 4 and 5 are bound to issue building permit to the Petitioner without making payment of the money demanded by Exhibit-P3;

V. 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;

VI. 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;

VII. To dispense with the production of the translated copies of documents in vernacular language;

and VIII. 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 Ext.P3 return note issued by the 4^th respondent Municipality directing him to pay an additional fee of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for construction of an area exceeding 3000 sq. ft. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in ABAD Builders Private Ltd. v.

State of Kerala ( 2025 KLT OnLine 1033 ).

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

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). The Government Pleader submitted that the above judgment is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and Writ Appeal No.495/2025 is still pending. If that be the case, the orders issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Exhibit P3 return note is set aside.

2. The 4^th respondent is directed to process the building permit application submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting any additional fee, 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.