Kerala High Court
Baiju Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021/1ST SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 27491 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
BAIJU ANTONY, AGED 47, S/O.ANTONY,
PALLIPPATT HOUSE, VALLAKKUNNU DESOM,
KALLETTUMKARA P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE ALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
KALLETTUMKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANU RAJ
R2 BY ADV SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.27491/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2021
The petitioner seeks to command the 2 nd respondent
to consider the application for building permit submitted by
him evidenced by Ext.P4 and to issue building permit to the
petitioner without development permit. The petitioner also
seeks to set aside Ext.P4.
2. Application submitted by the petitioner for
building permit was rejected on the ground that Land
Development Permit is required for issuance of a building
permit. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner or his
predecessor had not done any development activities in the
property and hence the condition that the development
permit is required cannot be justified. Imposition of such
condition on the petitioner who is a bonafide purchaser, is
arbitrary.
WP(C) No.27491/2020
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd
respondent entered appearance and objected to the
prayers made in the writ petition. According to the Standing
Counsel, in view of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules,
for construction of buildings in the land in question, a land
development permit is required.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent
and the learned Government Pleader representing the 1 st
respondent.
5. It is admitted at the bar that the issue involved in
this writ petition is covered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court
in WP(C)No.31469/2019 wherein it has been held that
when a person intends to make a construction in a small
portion of a land without "developing" it, a Development
Plan cannot be insisted upon. Furthermore, the judgment
of this Court in Nafeesa and another v. Chavakkad
WP(C) No.27491/2020
Municipality and others [2018 (3) KLT 1] also is in
support of the petitioner's case.
6. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 order of the 2 nd
respondent is set aside and the 2 nd respondent is directed
to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in the
light of Ext.P5 judgment and the judgment of this Court in
Nafeesa (supra), within a period of eight weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/26.07.2021
WP(C) No.27491/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27491/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.652
OF 2020 OF KALLETTUMKARA SRO DATED
25/3/2020
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL08060701496/2020 ISSUED FROM
KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE DATED 8/6/2020
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE NO.48036573 ISSUED FROM
THE KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE
DATED 23/7/2020
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED AS
A4-4713/2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 27/10/2020
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
31469 OF 2019 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 27/11/2019
