Vyshak.M vs The Mannur Gramapanchayat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1958 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              VYSHAK.M
              AGED 32 YEARS
              S/O. MADHUSOODHANAN P.R, THUSHARAM HOUSE, NEELESWARAM,
              KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671314

              BY ADVS.
              JACOB SEBASTIAN
              K.V.WINSTON
              ANU JACOB
              DIVYA R. NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE MANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYAT
              MANNUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
              SECRETARY., PIN - 678642

     2        THE SECRETARY
              MANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYAT, MANNUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 678642

              BY ADVS.
              Dinesh Mathew J Murikan
              VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023                      2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

i. Quash Exhibit-P2 Issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.

ii. Issue a writ In the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner without insisting on a development permit to be obtained by his assignor or the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayath.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner had purchased a plot of land having an extent of 2.29

Ares of land in Re.survey No.530/10 of Mannur Village, Palakkad

Taluk. It is stated that the property lies within the area of the 1 st

respondent Panchayath and that the petitioner had submitted an

application for building permit for construction of a residential house

in the property. It is submitted that Ext.P2 communication has been

issued on 10/11/2022 directing the petitioner to produce

development permit for the development which has been carried out

in the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner's property has an extent of only 2.29 Ares and that no

development has been carried out in the property and that the

refusal to consider the application for building permit is therefore

untenable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in

Nafeesa and another v Chavakkad Municipality and others

[2018 (3) KLT 1] and of a Division Bench of this Court in Panjal

Grama Panchayath, Thrissur and another v Aneesh.P [2022

(2) KLT 653].

4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record on the behalf of

the Panchayath. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Panchayath that the subdivision of plots has been

carried out by the previous owner without obtaining any development

permit which is against the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath

Building Rules and that notices have been issued to the said owner as

well. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner is the

owner of a property having only an extent of 2.29 Ares and since the

building permit is sought for construction of a building in the said plot

alone and admittedly no development as defined under the Kerala

Panchayath Building Rules has been effected within the plot in

question, the respondents cannot refuse to consider the application

submitted by the petitioner for building permit.

Ext.P2 communication is therefore set aside. There will be a

direction to the 2nd respondent to take up the building permit

application submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass

orders on the same, strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayath

Building Rules and without insisting on the production of

development permit by the petitioner. Appropriate steps shall be

taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ska

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2845/2022 OF SRO, PARALI DATED 30.09.2022.

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.26463/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the stop memo issued to the predecessor by the 1st respondent dated 09.12.2022

Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the communication issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent dated 12.01.2023