The court held that the collection of additional fees for building areas exceeding 3000 sq. ft. under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008, is unsustainable, relying on established judicial precedent, while noting that the implementation of this order remains subject to pending higher court appeals.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

Dated this the 18th day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

i) Call for the records relating to the case;

ii) Declare that Rule 12 (9) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 , framed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 is ultravires the provisions of the Act to the extent it provides for levy of a fee for the area of building exceeding 3000 Sq.feet proposed in lands defined as unnotified lands under the Act;

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refrain from collecting any fee as stipulated in Note 1 to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 ;

iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to process the petitioner’s application for building permit without insisting the fee at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet over and above 3000 sq.feet, based on Note 1 to Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 ;

v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application for building permit before respondent No.3. Now, Ext.P5 has been received by the petitioner, wherein he has been directed to pay additional fee for the construction of a building exceeding 3000 square feet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned Government Pleader.

4. There is no dispute that the point raised by petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC 306].

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the above judgment has been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.495/2025, which is now pending.

6. If that is the case, the directions issued by this Court shall be subject to the final decision in W.A No.495/2025.

Therefore, the writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) Exhibit P5 is set aside.

(2) Respondent No.3 is directed to process Ext.P6 application for building permit, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting additional fee as claimed in Ext.P5, 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.