Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
C M Riyas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16707 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jacob Sebastian, Shamseera C. Ashraf, Winston K.V, Anu Jacob, Anjana Krishnan, Vincent C. J
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose, Binoy Vasudevan
The imposition of an additional construction fee under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2018, is considered ultra vires the parent Act, rendering such demands unenforceable, subject to final appellate review.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order demanding an additional fee of Rs. 100/- per square foot for construction exceeding 3000 sq.ft. under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2018. The petitioner contended that such a levy is ultra vires the parent Act. The Court noted that the issue was already covered by an existing precedent of the High Court. The core issue was whether the imposition of the fee under the 2018 Rules was legally valid. Relying on settled judicial precedent, the Court held that the petitioner is not liable to pay the demand, while noting that the governing precedent is currently under challenge in a pending Writ Appeal. The Court quashed the impugned communication and directed the local authority to process the application without the additional fee, subject to the final outcome of the pending appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against municipal demand for additional construction fees under state rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. disposal of petition based on prior binding judicial precedent regarding the invalidity of the imposed fee. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" I. Quash Exhibit-P2 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;
II. Quash the condition in Exhibit-P1 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 3 and 4 are bound to issue building permit to the Petitioner without making payment of the money demanded by Exhibit-P2;
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.P2 communication issued by the 4th respondent, by which the petitioner is directed to pay an additional fee of Rs.100 per sq.ft for construction of an area exceeding 3000 sq.ft. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Abad Builders Private Ltd v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1033].
3. 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 is 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. Ext.P2 is set aside.
2. The 4th respondent is directed to process the building permit application submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting on 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.
