KOCHI: Imposing a fee of Rs 100 per sq ft on proposed buildings exceeding 3,000 sq ft in converted paddy lands/regularized lands is against the provision of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, its rules, and the Amendment Act, 2018, the Kerala high court has held.
Justice C P Mohamed Nias issued the ruling on a batch of petitions challenging the provision imposing the fee under Note 1 to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (the Rules), framed under the Act.
The court directed the state authorities to refund the amount collected from the petitioners within four months. Furthermore, the bench ruled that no demand for such a fee shall be made against the petitioners and directed that their applications for building permits, including any pending applications, be considered within six weeks.
The petitioners argued that Section 27A (3) of the Act stipulates that if an application for regularizing conversions made before the Act’s commencement is allowed, the applicant is liable to pay a fee at the prescribed rate. However, they contended that this provision does not empower the state to levy a fee for constructing buildings after regularization.
The govt countered that Section 27A(3) of the Act does not prohibit levying fees based on the plinth area or building size. It asserted that the authority to levy such fees aligns with the legislative intent to responsibly regulate land conversion while ensuring ecological compliance and safeguarding agricultural interests.
Upon examining the arguments, the court held that the power to levy a fee based on the extent of construction is not granted under the Act. It observed that, even if the govt’s objectives are commendable, such a fee cannot be collected without an enabling statutory provision.
The court clarified that the only fee permissible under the Act is the one specified in Section 27A(3) for regularizing land conversions, and no additional fee for construction is contemplated. Since the Act does not regulate building construction, imposing such a fee is beyond the parent Act’s scope and must be deemed illegal and invalid, the bench concluded.
