Kerala High Court
Rosily Mary vs Narakal Grama Panchayat on 17 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31789 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
1 JAYANTHAN,
SASTHANKOODATH HOUSE,UDAYA NAGAR,ELEVANTH CROSS,
P.O.AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-680 003.
2 BEENA JAYANTHAN
W/O.JAYANTHAN,SASTHAMKOODATH HOUSE,UDHAYA NAGAR,
ELEVANTH CROSS,P.O.AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-680 003.
BY ADV SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SECRETARY, AVENUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
VELAPPAYA,P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE,THRISSUR-680 596.
2 AVENUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
VELAPPAYA,P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE,THRISSUR-680 596, REPRESENTED
BY SECRETARY.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.GANGESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 31789/2015 :2:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 31789 of 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following
reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of certiorari and thereby call for the records leading
to Ext. P5 and to quash Ext. P5.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the first respondent to consider and to
dispose of Ext. P3 application afresh and to allow the same.
2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased an extent
of 3.55 cents of property situated in Survey No. 31/3 of Velappaya
Village, Thrissur District, as is evident from Ext. P1 sale deed. The
petitioners intended to construct a house in that property and
approached the Panchayat authorities seeking issuance of permit and
approved plan. However, the Panchayat has refused to do so and has
issued Ext. P5 communication dated 29.09.2015 stating that the
petitioners have purchased the said extent of property from a larger
extent of property and therefore, without a development permit, the
application for building permit cannot be considered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , and
perused the pleadings and materials on record.
4. In my considered opinion, when a small extent of property is
purchased by a person, the Panchayat cannot insist for development
permit, since he is not the owner of the entire extent of the property
and he is not in a position to produce the development permit of the
entire extent of the property from which he has purchased a small
extent of land.
5. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this
Court, to which I am a party, in Panjal Grama Panchayat, Thrissur
and another v. Aneesh P [2022(2) KHC 775] and has held that under
such circumstances, when small plots are purchased by a person from
a larger extent of property, the Panchayat is not at liberty to insist for
development permit in order to consider the application for building
permit.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed by
quashing Ext. P9 and there will be a direction to the Secretary of the
Avenur Grama Panchayat, the first respondent, to consider the
application for building permit, if not considered, without insisting for
a development permit, at the earliest and at any rate within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/ SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31789/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3543 OF 2014 OF
SRO MUNDOOR DATEDE 08.10.2014.
EXT.P2 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.
EXT.P3 P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.08.2015
SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT.
EXT.P4 P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A3-216/2015 DATED
4.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P5 P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS DATED
29.09.2015 (NO A3-216/2015).
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
