Fees for land use change cannot be imposed on constructions pre-dating legal amendments, affirming principles established in prior case law.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are the owners of an extent of 5.95 ares (14.70 cents) of land in Survey No.664/1-28 of Elamkulam Village obtained by virtue of Sale Deed No.3030 of 2010 of SRO Ernakulam. The petitioners had constructed a building under Special Residential category in the said property on the basis of Building Permit No. KRP 1- COC-KRP/19/2011 dated 20.01.2012 issued by the Corporation of Cochin. After the completion of construction, the Corporation issued Occupancy Certificate to the petitioners and they are paying property tax for the building from the 1^st half of 2013-2014. The petitioners state that though the property is 'purayidom', it is included in the Data Bank as “converted before 2008”. Therefore, the petitioners made an application in Form-5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) before the 4^th respondent, the Sub Collector to remove the land from the Data Bank and by Ext.P3 proceedings, the property was removed from the Data Bank. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners made Ext.P4 application for change of nature of land in Form-6 under Rule 12(1) of the Rules before the 2^nd respondent, the District Collector. The 3^rd respondent, the Deputy Collector (RR) by Ext.P5 proceedings, allowed the application without payment of any fee for the land, but demanded an amount of Rs. 11,37,300/- (Rs. Eleven lakhs thirty seven thousand three hundred only) calculated at the rate of Rs. 100 per square foot for the building exceeding 3000 sq.ft.. The petitioners contend that the fee demanded for the building that was constructed and occupied much prior to the 2017 amendment to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) is without any legal sanction. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash Ext.P5 to the extent it demanded Rs. 11,37,300/- as fee for building and to declare that no fee can be collected for buildings existing prior to the amendment dated 30.12.2017 to the Act, based on the area exceeding 3000 sq.ft. as stipulated in the Schedule to the Rules.

2. Heard Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P.S. Appu, the learned Government Pleader.

3. Section 27A of the Act which has been inserted w.e.f 30.12.2017 deals with the procedure for changing the nature of unnotified land for residential, commercial, or other purposes, including the submission of an application in the prescribed form and the payment of the prescribed fees. This Court inGlobal Education Trust v . State of Kerala and others [ 2020 (6) KHC 538 ] held that the provisions of of the Act cannot be applied to land that had been utilised for construction with a valid permit or through due process of law before the incorporation of the said section in the Act. In State of Kerala v . Shaji N.T. [ 2025 (7) KHC 1 ], the Division Bench of this Court reiterated that where construction was completed and the land was already put to lawful use prior to 30.12.2017, and where the building has been recognised by both the local authority and the revenue department, (1) of the Act has no application. The construction of the building was completed, and the Corporation issued an Occupancy Certificate. The petitioners have been paying property tax for the building since the first half of 2013–2014. Therefore, of the Act has no application, and no fee can be collected in respect of the land that had already been utilised for the construction of the building prior to the incorporation of . Similar view was taken by this Court inReeta John v . State of Kerala [ 2023 (6) KLT 472 ]. Accordingly, Ext. P5 is quashed to the extent it demanded Rs. 11,37,300/- as fee for the subject building. The 3^rd responden