Rajeev V.A vs Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath
2023 Latest Caselaw 9716 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 29996 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

    1        RAJEEV V.A.
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O.K.ACHUTHAN NAIR, "SREERAGAM", FRANKLIN GARDEN,
             KUTTIKATTUKARA, UDYOGAMANDAL POST,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 501.
    2        SREELEKHA RAJEEV
             AGED 55 YEARS
             W/O. RAJEEV V.A., SREERAGAM", FRANKLIN GARDEN,
             KUTTIKATTUKARA, UDYOGAMANDAL POST,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 501.
             BY ADVS.
             R.SREEHARI
             HAMZA A.V.
             VIGNESH S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1        THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
             THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
             THIRUVILWAMALA POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 588
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2        THE SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
             THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
             THIRUVILWAMALA POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 588.

             SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP, STANDING COUNSEL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP© 29996/2023




                                                 2



                           BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                   ......................................................
                              W.P.(C).No.29996 of 2023
                       ...................................................
                 Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023


                                       JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the owners of 0.0083 hectares in Survey

No.775/1-8 and 0.0240 hectares of land in Survey No.775/1-9

of Kaniyarcode Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrisur District. For

the purpose of constructing a residential building in the

aforesaid land, they submitted Ext.P4 application to the 2 nd

respondent. However, by Ext.P5 communication, petitioners

were called upon to produce a development permit for the lay

out of the subdivision of the land purported to be required

under Rule 31(Xiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules,

2019.

2. Sri.Sreehari.R, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted

that for the purpose of construction of a residential building in

a small plot of land, a development permit is not required. He

relied upon the decisions in Nedumangad Municipality and Ors. WP© 29996/2023

v. Parameswaran Pilla [MANU/KE/3201/2022] apart from a

decision in Philip Thomas v. Geologist 2021 (5) KLT 227 and

Nafeesa and Ors. v. Chavakkad Municipality and Ors. 2018 (3)

KLT 1.

3. I have heard Sri.Rajpradeep, the learned Standing counsel for

the respondent Panchayat.

4. In the decision in Nedumangad Municipality's case (supra) the

Division Bench of this Court had considered the decision of a

learned Single Judge in Panjal Grama Panchayat, Thrissur and

Another v. Aneesh P. 2022 (2) KHC 775, and approved the

following observations made in Nafeesa's case (supra) '....unless

in the hands of the purchaser of the smaller portion of land, an

activity which attracts the definition of 'development of land',

as noticed above, is involved, there would be no requirement

for a person purchasing a plot of land for putting up a

construction therein, to obtain a development permit prior to

applying for a building permit for the said construction.'

5. In view of the above binding decision of this Court, it is

evident that, a development permit for constructing a WP© 29996/2023

residential house in an already developed plot of land is not

required. A development permit is required as per Rules 4 and

5 of the KMBR 2019 only when there is development of land

by dividing it into plots. In the absence of an activity which

attracts the definition of 'development of land' in the property

of the petitioners, there is no requirement of a development

permit, prior to applying for a building permit.

6. There is thus no requirement for petitioners to obtain a

development permit prior to applying for a building permit and

hence, the defect pointed out in Ext.P5 is without authority of

law.

7. In the above circumstances, I set aside Ext.P5 and direct the 2 nd

respondent to take a fresh decision on Ext.P4 application

submitted by the petitioners based on the observations made

above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/13/09/2023 WP© 29996/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29996/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 179/2023 OF SRO PAZHAYANNUR DATED 03/02/2023 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KANNIYARCODE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 04/04/2023 FOR THE PERIOD 2023-2024 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KANNIYARCODE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS WITH NO.77379998 DATED 13/04/2023 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 27/04/2023, THROUGH E-FILING MODE WITH REGISTRATION NO.2012624 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE WITH NO.400687/BPRL01/GPO/2023/5497/(2) DATED 21/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2018 (3) KLT 1 [NAFEESA -VS-

CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY] EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2022 (2) KLT 653 [PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH -VS- ANEESH] EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C) NO. 15397/2023 DATED 01/06/2023

TRUE COPY