Sangeetha S vs Thiruvillwamala Grama ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8568 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              SANGEETHA S
              AGED 27 YEARS
              W/O. SURESH KUMAR, KELATH PAKATH PARAMBIL HOUSE,
              PATTIPPARAMBU P.O, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,
              THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680588.
              BY ADV SHOBY K.FRANCIS


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THIRUVILLWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
              THIRUVILLWAMALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680588.
     2        SECRETARY,
              THIRUVILLWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
              THIRUVILLWAMALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680588.

              BY ADVS.
              BRIJESH MOHAN
              R.RAJPRADEEP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022

                                2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of July, 2022

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the

insistence made by the respondents on obtaining Development

Permit for the purpose of grant of Building Permit. The

petitioner challenges Ext.P5.

2. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

the respondents and contested the writ petition. The Standing

Counsel submitted that there was an earlier application for

Development Permit and Layout Approval submitted by the

owner of the land and the respondents had granted Layout

Approval. But, the applicant submitted a revised application for

Layout Approval. Pending such application, the petitioner, who

has purchased a portion of the land, cannot be granted Building

Permit, urged the Standing Counsel for the respondents. WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022

3. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner has

purchased 6.86 Cents of land from the property owner and the

petitioner does not propose to make any development of the

land. The sole intention of the petitioner is to construct a

residential building. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that the issue involved in this case is covered by various

judgments of this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

5. The question arising for consideration in this writ

petition is whether the respondents are justified in insisting for

obtaining Development Permit/Layout Approval from the

petitioner for construction of a residential building. This Court in

Philip Thomas v. Geologist [2021 (5) KLT 227] held that the

Kerala Municipal Building Rules do not provide for issuance of

Land Development Permit in cases where building construction WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022

does not involve sub division of plots. A Development Permit

under Rules 4 and 5 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules,

2019 is required only when there is development of land by

dividing land into plots. In the petitioner's case, the petitioner

does not intend to sub divide any land into plots.

6. In Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality [2018 (3)

KLT 1], this Court held that unless in the land of the purchaser

of the smaller portion of the land, activity which attracts the

definition of 'development of land' is involved, there would be no

requirement of obtaining Development Permit prior to applying

for a Building Permit.

In view of the binding precedents of this Court, the

petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. The writ

petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider

the application for Building Permit submitted by the petitioner

without insisting for Development Permit/Layout Approval and

grant the petitioner Building Permit, if the petitioner is otherwise WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022

eligible. To enable the respondents to reconsider the issue,

Ext.P5 is set aside. Orders on the application for Building

Permit shall be passed within a period of one month.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16308/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 31.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE THADAPER ACCOUNT DATED 31.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. C2-5609/2021 DATED 27.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.