The Kerala High Court has ruled against the imposition of fees on the construction of large buildings on converted paddy lands or regularized lands, citing a lack of legislative backing. Justice C.P. Mohamed Nias issued the judgment, declaring such charges as inconsistent with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, its associated rules, and the 2018 Amendment Act.
The ruling followed petitions challenging the legality of a fee of ₹100 per square foot, levied on constructions exceeding 3,000 square feet in size on regularized lands. This fee was introduced under Note 1 to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. Petitioners contended that the fee exceeded the scope of the law, arguing that the Act does not authorize additional charges for buildings on lands already regularized under its provisions.
The petitioners specifically referred to Section 27A(3) of the Act, which governs the regularization of land conversions made before the law’s enactment. They argued that while this section allows for a one-time fee to regularize prior conversions, it does not authorize further charges related to construction on these lands. They described the fee based on plinth area as arbitrary, lacking statutory support, and contrary to the intent of the parent Act.
The state government defended the fee as a measure to promote responsible land use and environmental compliance, aligning with the broader goals of protecting agricultural interests and deterring unchecked construction. Officials argued that the Act does not explicitly prohibit such fees and claimed the measure was consistent with the state’s responsibility to manage land conversions and safeguard ecological priorities.
However, the court found that the parent Act does not provide any legal authority to impose fees based on the size or extent of construction. While acknowledging the government’s objectives, Justice Nias emphasized that any fee must be expressly supported by enabling provisions within the legislation. He reiterated that the Act’s primary focus is on conserving wetlands and paddy fields, preventing unauthorized conversions, and facilitating the regularization of pre-2008 conversions upon payment of a prescribed fee. Beyond this scope, the Act does not regulate construction activities, making the imposition of additional charges legally untenable.
The court held that rules framed under the Act cannot introduce measures inconsistent with its core provisions. The fee under Rule 12(9) was deemed ultra vires (beyond the powers conferred by the Act), rendering it unlawful.
As part of the judgment, the High Court directed the state to refund all fees collected from the petitioners within four months and prohibited further demands for such charges. It also instructed authorities to process pending and future building permit applications for converted lands without considering the invalidated fee.