Kerala High Court
Salsabeel Educational And Welfare ... vs Corporation Of Thrissur on 30 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SALSABEEL EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY
REG. NO53/2002, VENKITANGU P.O.,
POOTHOLE, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680004
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.B.DEEPAK
SMT.ANNA ROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OFFICE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THRISSUR CORPORATION,
CORPORATION OFFICE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR
LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE,
OPP. TOWN HALL, CHEMBUKKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
BY ADV SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
2 2025:KER:37789
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext. P3 order
passed by the third respondent and Ext. P5
communication passed by the second respondent, and to
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to process the petitioner's
application for a building permit without insisting for any
additional fee under Note (1) to Schedule under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and
Rules, 2008 ('Act' and 'Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is an educational and welfare
society. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 15
cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 2080/5 and
2090/3 of the Thrissur Village in Thrissur Taluk, covered
by Ext.P2 possession certificate. The petitioner's
property was included as "Nilam' in the revenue records.
By Ext. P3 order, the petitioner's properties'
classification was corrected in the revenue records, and
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
3 2025:KER:37789
Ext. P4 consequential orders were passed by the fourth
respondent. The petitioner is desirous to construct a
building in the said property. When the petitioner
submitted an application for the building permit, the first
respondent declined to accept the application on the
ground that the petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs.
100/- for every additional square feet over above 3000
sq.ft proposed to be constructed. The demand made by
the first respondent is against the law laid down by this
Court in ABAD Builders Private Ltd v. State of
Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1033], wherein this Court has
struck down Note (1) of the Schedule as unconstitutional
and ultra-vires. Therefore, Exts. P3 order and P5
communication are liable to be quashed, and the
respondents are to be directed to process the petitioner's
application for the building permit without insisting for
the additional fee.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
4 2025:KER:37789
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, by Ext. P3
order, the third respondent had ordered the change of
classification of the petitioner's property in the revenue
records. Subsequently, Ext. P4 consequential order was
passed. Now, by Ext. P5 order, the second respondent
has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- for every
additional square feet over 3000 sq.ft as per Note (1) of
the Schedule to the Act.
5. In Abad Builders Private Ltd (supra), this
Court has struck down Note (1) of the schedule to the
Rules as unconstitutional. Thus, as on today, there is no
Note 1) in the statute.
6. In the afore said circumstances, I am satisfied
that Ext. P3 order to the extent it demands for the
payment of fee, and Ext. P5 communication directing the
petitioner to pay the fee in respect of the proposed
building, is untenable. Therefore, I hold that Ext. P3
order and Ext. P5 communication have to be quashed to
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
5 2025:KER:37789
the said extent.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by quashing
Exts. P3 order and P5 communication to the extent they
demand the petitioner to remit Rs. 100/- for every
additional square feet above 3000 sq.ft, and directing the
second respondent to process the petitioner's application
for the building permit without insisting for the payment
of any additional fee as demanded in Ext. P5
communication.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/30.05.25
WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2025
6 2025:KER:37789
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19598/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE SOCIETY, VIDE
NO.52/2002 DATED NIL
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO
THIS PROPERTY, BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VIDE NO.90246459, DATED 20-12-2024
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT, NO. RDOTSR/254/2022-D8
DATED NIL-
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO. B10-13576/2022,
DATED 10-03-2023
EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.DW3/190544-2025,
DATED 15-05-2025
EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.
(C)NO.2785/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES,
DATED 09-01-2025
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.
(C)NO.27181/2022 DATED 6.10.2022
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN
W.P(C). NO.38942/2022 DATED 2.12.2022
