Mini Benny vs The Narakkal Grama Panchayat
2025 Latest Caselaw 12532 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mini Benny vs The Narakkal Grama Panchayat on 19 December, 2025

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

W.A.No.2756 of 2025              1                       2025:KER:97627



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                    &

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

  FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                        WA NO. 2756 OF 2025

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32532 OF

2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            MINI BENNY,AGED 52 YEARS,W/O. BENNY, THUNDATHIL HOUSE,
            NARAKKAL P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED
            SMT.DEEPA SASIDHARAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE NARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
            NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
            682505

    2       THE SECRETARY, NARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NARAKKAL,
            ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682505

    3       THOMAS , S/O. LATE OUSEPH, ELAVATHUNKAL HOUSE,
            NARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
            R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 25.7.2024 IN I.A.1/23, PIN -
            682505

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR, SC
            SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, R3
            SHRI.T.K VIPIN DAS, SR.GP

      THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2025, THE COURT
ON 19.12.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.2756 of 2025              2                    2025:KER:97627



                            JUDGMENT

MURALEE KRISHNA, J The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32532 of 2023 filed this writ

appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,

challenging the judgment dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned

Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the

appellant is the owner in possession of 7.955 cents of land in

Narakkal Village, which she purchased in the year 2002, as evident

from Ext.P1 tax receipt. For the purpose of constructing a

residential house, she obtained Ext.P2 building permit from the

2nd respondent. Pursuant to the grant of a building permit, the

appellant completed the construction without any violation of the

Building Rules and submitted the completion plan and application

for issuance of an occupancy certificate as per Exhibit P4 on

05.06.2023. As per the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, the

secretary is bound to issue the occupancy certificate within 15

days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate, which

expired on 20.06.2023. The 2nd respondent has at no point in time

issued any letter in the said period pointing out any defect in the

completion certificate, and hence she is entitled to obtain a

deemed occupancy certificate. In the decision reported in Hamza W.A.No.2756 of 2025 3 2025:KER:97627

Haji S.K. v. Payyannur Municipality [2018 (4) KHC 30], this

Court held that if a completion certificate is submitted by the

owner of the building and the same is not issued by the

Municipality within 15 days from the date of receipt of the

completion certificate, the owner will secure a deemed occupancy

certificate. But even after the lapse of 3 months, the occupancy

certificate has not been issued. Hence, the appellant is entitled to

obtain a deemed occupancy certificate and to get her building

numbered after assessing the property tax. Hence, the appellant

filed W.P(C)No.32532 of 2023 under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue occupancy certificate pursuant to Ext.P4 application, to the building constructed by the petitioner and assign building number after assessing the tax.

ii. Call for the records relating to Ext.P5 letter issued by the 2nd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the same.

iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get occupancy certificate as per the proviso to sub Rule 3 of Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011."

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit dated

18.11.2023 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought by the

appellant and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(i) documents.

W.A.No.2756 of 2025 4 2025:KER:97627

To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated

26.11.2024, producing therewith Exts.P6 to P9 documents. The

3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2024,

producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(d) documents and an

additional counter affidavit dated 07.12.2024, producing

therewith Exts.R3(e) and R3(f) documents.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment

dated 10.10.2025 disposed of the writ petition along with three

other connected writ petitions. Paragraph 17 and the last

paragraph of the judgment read thus:

"17. Though the petitioner (Smt.Mini Benny) claimed that she is entitled for a deemed occupancy, after submitting necessary application for issuance of an occupancy certificate, certain defects were notified and the petitioner corrected it and resubmitted the application. Thereafter, the petitioner on being informed that there are certain defects, submitted a written communication to the respondent Panchayat that the defects notified will be cured without any delay. Thereafter, the Panchayat has issued Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner stating that only by curing the defects the application could be considered. In the light of the subsequent developments including the written submission made by the petitioner and the subsequent issuance of Ext.P5 communication intimating that only after curing the defects the application for occupancy certificate W.A.No.2756 of 2025 5 2025:KER:97627

will be considered, this Court is not inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a deemed occupancy. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:

(i) The respondent Panchayat shall conduct an inspection based on the report of the Taluk Surveyor, which was obtained by the respondent Panchayat as directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3148 of 2021 and take steps to remove the encroachment, if any, by the petitioner (Smt.Mini Benny) and after removing such encroachment, if there is sufficient setback on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner and if the building is constructed as permitted in the building permit granted by the local authority, occupancy certificate shall be issued to the petitioner (Smt.Mini Benny) without any delay. The said procedure shall be done with notice to the petitioner (Smt.Mini Benny) and also to Thomas E.O., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12161 of 2022, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. (ii) The request of the petitioner as per Exts.P2 and P5 complaints produced in W.P.(C) No.21752 of 2022 regarding the alleged encroachment and construction of a bridge by the 3rd respondent across the Panchayat thodu shall be considered by the respondent Panchayat after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and a decision shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

With the abovesaid directions, the above writ petitions are disposed of."

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner has filed W.A.No.2756 of 2025 6 2025:KER:97627

the present writ appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the

learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Standing

Counsel for the Narakkal Grama Panchayat.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant had completed the construction of the building

without any violation of the Building Rules, and she submitted the

completion plan and application for issuance of occupancy

certificate to the 2nd respondent on 02.05.2023. As per Rule 20(3)

of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, the Secretary of the

Panchayat shall, on being satisfied that the construction has been

carried out in conformity with the requirements of the Rules, issue

an occupancy certificate within fifteen days from the date of

receipt of the completion certificate. Since the statutory period for

issuing an occupancy certificate was over by 20.06.2023, the

appellant is entitled to get the deemed occupancy. The learned

counsel vehemently submitted that there is sufficient setback

even after leaving the alleged encroachment, and the construction

of the building has nothing to do with that strip of land. Moreover,

a separate procedure is prescribed under the Rules regarding the

eviction of encroachment, and therefore, the learned single Judge W.A.No.2756 of 2025 7 2025:KER:97627

grossly erred in directing the Panchayat to remove the

encroachment, that is in effect denying an opportunity to the

appellant to put forward her defence available as per the Kerala

Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and

Recovery of Penalty for an Unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1996.

In support of his arguments regarding deemed occupancy, the

learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Malik Bin

Deenar Islamic Complex v. Kaipamangalam Grama

Panchayat and Another [2020 (2) KLT 394]. By pointing out

the completion plan submitted by the appellant before the

Panchayat, the learned counsel argued that there is sufficient

setback on all sides of the building. The learned counsel pointed

out Rules 2(cj) and 26 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules,

2019, to argue that a sufficient setback is available on the eastern

side, by interchanging the rear yard of the building as mentioned

in the Rules.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd

respondent would argue that the Rule relied on in Malik Bin

Deenar [2020 (2) KLT 394] is the Kerala Panchayat Building

Rules, 2011, which was amended by the Kerala Panchayat Building

Rules, 2019. After the amendment, the completion plan to be W.A.No.2756 of 2025 8 2025:KER:97627

submitted before the Panchayat should be in conformity with the

permit issued. The learned counsel pointed out that in a previous

round of litigation, as per Ext.R1(a) judgment dated 23.11.2021

in W.P.(C)No.3148 of 2021, this Court directed the Taluk

Surveyor, Taluk Office, Kochi, to take appropriate steps on the

request of the Panchayat for measurement of the property of the

appellant and to carry out the measurements with notice to the

appellant and the Panchayat within three weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of that judgment. After the measurement is

completed, the Panchayat was directed to take up the application

for building permit and pass appropriate orders thereon within a

period of two weeks thereafter. Subsequently, the Taluk Surveyor

measured the property and submitted Ext.R1(b) sketch. The Taluk

Surveyor reported that the appellant had encroached upon a

portion of Panchayat thodu situated on the eastern side of the

property. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge

cautiously directed the removal of the encroachment after

conducting an inspection based on the report of the Taluk

Surveyor and thereafter to consider the request for occupancy

certificate. Hence, no interference is needed on the impugned

judgment of the learned Single Judge.

W.A.No.2756 of 2025 9 2025:KER:97627

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent

Grama Panchayat would submit that after the judgment of the

learned Single Judge, the Panchayat had conducted the inspection

as directed therein and found that the appellant had encroached

into a portion of the river puramboku. Therefore, the occupancy

certificate will be issued only after removing that encroachment

and ensuring that the building constructed by the appellant

satisfies the Rules.

10. We have carefully gone through the impugned

judgment of the learned Single Judge and the materials placed on

record. From the pleadings, we notice that the appellant relied on

the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, in her pleadings. In

the writ appeal she filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 to substitute the heading

Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, wherever she stated the

Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. However, we notice that

no amendment is requested to the pleadings which she made in

the writ petition and writ appeal in consonance with the Kerala

Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. In such circumstances, we are of

the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing I.A.No.1 of

2025 and therefore, the said interlocutory application is liable to

be dismissed.

W.A.No.2756 of 2025 10 2025:KER:97627

11. The appellant had obtained the building permit in

pursuance to a direction issued by this Court in Ext.R1(a)

judgment dated 23.11.2021, passed by this Court in

W.P.(C)No.3148 of 2021. It was after the inspection of the Taluk

Surveyor, as directed in Ext.R1(a) judgment and submission of

Ext.R1(b) sketch by him, the building permit was issued to the

appellant. However, in Ext.R1(b) sketch itself, the Taluk Surveyor

found that there is encroachment on the eastern side of the

property on the river Puramboku by the appellant.

12. Now the appellant claims deemed occupancy in view of

non-passing of any orders by the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayat in the completion plan submitted by her on 02.05.2023,

which was resubmitted on 05.06.2023, contending that since the

Secretary did not take a decision in the completion report

submitted by the appellant within fifteen days, she is entitled to

proceed as if such occupancy certificate has been duly issued to

her. Though the appellant contends that as per the Kerala

Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, the only requirement is that the

completion report submitted by the appellant should satisfy the

Building Rules, the reading of Rule 20(3) of the said Rules would

show that the completion report should satisfy that the W.A.No.2756 of 2025 11 2025:KER:97627

construction is in conformity with the permit given. Rule 25(3) of

the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, which necessitated

only compliance with the Building Rules while submitting the

completion report, was amended in Kerala Panchayat Building

Rules, 2019, stipulating that the completion report should be in

conformity with the permit issued. According to the respondents,

the completion report submitted by the appellant is not in

conformity with the permit granted to her. Therefore, by relying

on Rule 20(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules, 2019,

the appellant cannot claim deemed occupancy.

13. As per Rule 2(cj) of the Kerala Panchayat Building

Rules, 2019, rear yard means the open space extending laterally

along the rear side of the plot and forming part of the plot; any

side of rear yard can be interchanged with rear yard. As per Rule

26 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, there should be

a setback of 1 metre from the boundary on the side yards and 1.5

metres on the rear yard. Based on the aforesaid Rules, the

appellant contends that the rear yard of the building constructed

by her is on the northern side, and the eastern and southern sides

are the side yards. According to the appellant, if the yards are

accepted in such a way, there is sufficient setback on all sides of W.A.No.2756 of 2025 12 2025:KER:97627

the building. However, from Ext.R1(b) sketch of the Taluk

Surveyor and also the submissions made at the Bar, we found that

there is a dispute pertaining to the property on the eastern side of

the building, and the Panchayat claims that the appellant

encroached into a strip of river puramboke on that side. Ext.R1(b)

sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor in pursuance of the

direction issued in Ext.R1(a) judgment of this Court also fortifies

this contention of the Panchayat. In such circumstances, we find

no merit in the contention of the appellant that she is entitled to

a deemed occupancy certificate in view of non-consideration of the

completion report within fifteen days by the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat.

14. Though the learned counsel for the appellant relied on

the judgment in Malik Bin Deenar [2020 (2) KLT 394] to argue

that she is entitled for deemed occupancy, we notice that the said

judgment was pronounced relying on the Kerala Panchayat

Building Rules 2011 and due to the substantial changes made to

the rules thereafter while enacting the Kerala Panchayat Building

Rules 2019, the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment

does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

15. While going through the impugned judgment of the W.A.No.2756 of 2025 13 2025:KER:97627

learned Single Judge, it is clear that the learned Single Judge

considered all these aspects while issuing the directions

mentioned above. However, we find that the direction of the

learned Single Judge, without clarifying that before the removal of

the encroachment, the appellant has to be heard by the

Panchayat, will violate natural justice.

16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it

appropriate to dispose of this writ appeal, interfering with the

impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge only to the extent

of clarifying that before taking a final decision on removal of the

encroachment as directed by the learned Single Judge, the

Panchayat shall give an opportunity of hearing the appellant, in

accordance with law.

The writ appeal is disposed of as above; and I.A.No.1 of 2025

stands dismissed for the reasons stated in paragraph 10 of this

judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

nak                                 MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE