Nimin Unni vs Panjal Grama Panchayath
2023 Latest Caselaw 8864 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 25745 OF 2023
PETITIONER

             NIMIN UNNI
             AGED 36 YEARS
             S/O NIRMAL KUMAR, AVITTOM HOUSE, CHUDUVALATHUR,
             SHORNUR PO, PALAKKKAD DT., PIN - 679121
             BY ADVS.
             SHOBY K.FRANCIS
             AGI SHOBY
             SHIFANA M.


RESPONDENTS:

     1       PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANJAL PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
             PANJAL PO, THRISSUR DT., PIN - 679531
     2       SECRETARY
             PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANJAL PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
             PANJAL PO, THRISSUR DT., PIN - 679531

             BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN,STANDING COUNSEL




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.25745 OF 2023
                                        2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of August, 2023

The petitioner, who is owner of 7.89 Ares of land in Panjal

Village of Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District, has approached

this Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the

Grama Panchayat to issue Building Permit on the basis of

Building Permit application submitted by the petitioner, without

insisting for approved layout, Development Permit and

Development Certificate.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased an

extent of 7.89 Ares of land in the year 2022. The petitioner

applied for Building Permit. The 2nd respondent-Secretary to the

Grama Panchayat insisted that the petitioner shall produce a

Development Permit. It is aggrieved by the said stand of the 2 nd

respondent that the petitioner is before this Court. WP(C) NO.25745 OF 2023

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner only wants to construct a house in 7.89 Ares of land

and does not intend to develop the property. If the petitioner

has purchased land from a person holding a larger extent of

area, that by itself will not justify the insistence for Development

Permit.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this

Court in Panjal Grama Panchayat and another v. Aneesh P

[2022 (2) KLT 653] which confirmed an earlier judgment of this

Court in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality [2018 (3) KLT 1].

In view of the judgments of this Court, the petitioner is entitled

to get a Building Permit without applying for Development

Permit, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing

Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the

petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted on behalf of the

respondents that since the plot of the petitioner is forming part WP(C) NO.25745 OF 2023

of a larger area, a Development Permit is indeed necessary in

the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat

Building Rules.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

7. This Court has considered the question of

requirement of a Development Permit for obtaining a Building

Permit. In Philip Thomas v. Geologist [2021(5) KLT 227], this

Court held that the Building Rules do not provide for issuance of

Development Permit in cases where building construction does

not involve subdivision of plots. A Development Permit under

the Building Rules 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 subdivide any land into plots.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat

to consider the Building Permit application submitted by the WP(C) NO.25745 OF 2023

petitioner without insisting for Development Permit and pass

appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months.

Ext.P3 is set aside to the extent it relates to the requirement of

Development Permit as contained in Serial No.4 therein.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.25745 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25745/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit - P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 17-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH NO. KL08024501244/2023 Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 26-6-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH NO. 78934844 Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-7-

2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO. 400685/BPRL01/GA/2023/ 4069/(1)