Kerala High Court
A.C. David vs Geetha V.A on 15 September, 2025
2025:KER:68625
W.P.(C). No.41916 of 2022 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41916 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
A.C. DAVID,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. LATE A.V.CHACKO,ARIMBOOR HOUSE, ATS ROAD
CHALISSERI, PALAKKAD DIST 679536
BY ADV A.C. DAVID,(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 GEETHA V.A,
SECRETARY, CHALISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHALISSERI, P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679536
2 SURAMYA,
OVERSEER, ENGINEERING SECTION, CHALISSERI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, CHALISSERI, P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679536
3 A.I.PAUL ,
S/O.A.V.ITTOOP, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, CHALISSERI ANGADI,
CHALISSERI, P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679536
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SHRI.P.ANIRUDHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68625
W.P.(C). No.41916 of 2022 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.41916 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1
order in Appeal No.601/2021 passed by the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The above appeal was filed against an order No.A1/3509/21
dated 17.11.2021 issued by the Secretary of the Chalisseri Grama
Panchayat, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1(b) along with the
counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent. The contention of the
petitioner is that he is a co-owner of a property in Chalisseri, at
Palakkad District and residing there since 2009. The premises has
two houses, one designated for the petitioner's elder brother and
the other for the petitioner, which has no well. The position of well
earmarked for the petitioner's house is adjacent and two meters
away from the property of the 3 rd respondent. Though the
petitioner informed the 3rd respondent that he is making an
2025:KER:68625
application for construction of a well, the 3 rd respondent made an
application after a month of petitioner's application, to construct a
sewage pit adjacent to his boundary nearby the assigned position of
well for the petitioners house. Though application was submitted
by the petitioner, no action has been taken on the same. Petitioner
submits that he is entitled for a deemed permit as on 21.10.2021.
On a complaint made by the petitioner, an inspection was
conducted and the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the
deemed permit will be cancelled since the sewage collection pit has
been partially dug in property of the 3 rd respondent, around three
meters away from the edge of the proposed location of the
petitioner's well. Thereupon the petitioner made an enquiry and
found that on 12.10.2021 permit was granted to the 3rd respondent.
While so, the petitioner received Ext.R1(b) order dated 17.11.2021
intimating that the application submitted by the petitioner for
construction of a well is not in accordance with the provisions of
the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019( hereinafter referred to
as 'the Rules, 2019'). Further it is stated that since there is no
compliance of Rules 14(1) and 14(2) before submitting an
2025:KER:68625
application under Rule 14(3), the petitioner is not entitled for the
deemed permit. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an
appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions
and the Tribunal by Ext.P1, dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner is not
entitled for the deemed permit, inasmuch as there is total non-
compliance of the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 2019. The
Tribunal after verifying the files produced by the 1 st respondent,
entered a finding that the application for construction of a well was
submitted by the petitioner on 16.08.2021 and later an application
was submitted on 21.10.2021 stating that he filed the application
under Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 2019 after 60 days of submitting
online application, for commencement of work on 21.10.2021. The
Tribunal found that the non-compliance of Rule 14(1) makes the
receipt obtained by the petitioner under Section 14(3) invalid and
the petitioner could not produce any documents to substantiate
that he has complied with Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 2019. The
Tribunal also found that since the petitioner does not have any
deemed permit and the work was undertaken by the 3 rd respondent
2025:KER:68625
after obtaining building permit on 12.10.2021, the petitioner could
not contend that the building permit obtained by the 3 rd
respondent on 12.10.2021 is illegal. Since the soak pit has already
been constructed with a valid permit, construction of the well
within 7.5 meters radius from the soak pit cannot be permitted. It
is also found by the Tribunal that the building permit issued in
favour of the 3rd respondent as early as on 12.10.2021 has not
been challenged by the petitioner.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd
respondent wherein it is stated that the 3 rd respondent has
constructed a small residential building having area of 57.10 M 2, in
category II, for which no permit is required from the village
panchayath. After the construction of the basement, a sewage pit
was also constructed in the 1st week of March 2021. Ext.R3(1)
application for building permit was submitted by the 3 rd respondent
on 18.08.2021 and the Panchayat has issued Ext.R3(2) building
permit in favour of the 3 rd respondent. Pursuant to Ext.R3(2), the
construction was completed and the building was numbered. There
is absolutely no violation as alleged by the petitioner. The
2025:KER:68625
petitioner has submitted an application by suppressing the facts
that, there is another well, as well as a tube well in the petitioner's
property and the petitioner is using water from the above said well
and tube well. It is also submitted that the proposed well was not in
existence or under construction at the time of construction of the
soak pit, which was constructed based on valid permit issued by
the respondent Panchayat in favour of the 3rd respondent and
permitted the construction of the septic tank/soak pit after having
verified and satisfied that there is no well in the property of the
petitioner within a radius of 7.5 meters from the soak pit.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the 1 st
respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner made an
application for building permit online on 12.08.2021 and the
physical application was submitted by the petitioner on 16.08.2021.
The 3rd respondent submitted his application for building permit
on 18.08.2021 online and physical application was submitted by the
3rd respondent on 24.08.2021. The petitioner was contacted several
times for site inspection by the concerned authorities but the dates
always got postponed on the inconvenience cited by the petitioner.
2025:KER:68625
The application submitted by the petitioner was also defective but
the same could not be properly communicated with the petitioner
on account of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner in
assisting the Panchayat with site inspection and other formalities.
The 3rd respondent on the other hand cooperated with the site
inspection and other formalities without any delay and thereupon
the 3rd respondent was granted with building permit on 12.10.2021.
The petitioner has also not challenged the building permit granted
to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner thereafter presented a letter
styled as an application filed under Rule 14(3) of the Kerala
Panchayath Building Rules, 2019 on 21.10.2021, produced as
Ext.R1(a). The contents in the application states that as 60 days
have passed, the petitioner is submitting an application under Rule
14(3) for commencement of the work with respect to his well. Later
site inspection with respect to the petitioner's property was
conducted on 29.10.2021. On the site inspection it was noticed that
there were two buildings in the petitioner's property and that only
the number of one building was disclosed in the application
submitted by the petitioner and also that as per the possession
2025:KER:68625
certificate, the name of the co-owner of the property was not
revealed and the co-owner has not joined the application for permit
and hence the application itself was found to be not maintainable.
In the site inspection it was also noticed that there is a septic tank
under construction under a valid permit and as such a permission
for a well cannot be granted within the prohibited distance. Later,
by order dated 17.11.2021 the Panchayat cancelled the deemed
building permit, presumed to be obtained by the petitioner for non-
compliance of the mandates under Rule 14(1) and 14(2) of the
Rules, 2019 on the ground that there is a septic tank under
construction within the prohibited distance of the well earmarked
for the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Assistant Engineer
has submitted Ext.R1(c) report with respect to the building permit
already granted to the 3rd respondent that there is no suitable area
where the soak pit in the 3rd respondent's property can be shifted
apart from the area where the permit is already granted. It is also
to be noted that the construction carried out by the 3 rd respondent
is only for a build up area of 57.10 M 2 in category II, for which even
a building permit is not required. The 3 rd respondent has already
2025:KER:68625
completed the construction of the house in the month of March and
the soak pit was also half way done before the grant of the building
permit.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The essential contention raised by the petitioner is that he
has submitted an application for construction of a well and the
same was not considered or any decision was taken on the same
and therefore, he is entitled for a deemed permit. As rightly found
by the Tribunal and by the respondent Panchayat in Ext.R1(b)
order, for getting a deemed permit as provided under Rule 14(3) of
the Rules, 2019, the petitioner has to comply with the provisions of
Rules 14(1) and 14(2) of the Rules, 2019. Rule 14(1) mandates that
the Village Panchayat shall, if the Secretary, neither approves nor
disapproves a building site, neither gives nor refuses permission to
execute any work within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the
application, on the written request of the applicant, be bound to
determine whether such approval or permission should be given or
not. Rule 14(2) mandates that where the Village Panchayat does
not, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such written
2025:KER:68625
request, determine whether such approval or permission should be
given or not, such approval or permission shall be deemed to have
been given, and the applicant may proceed to execute work, but
not so as to contravene any provision of the Act or these rules or
bye-laws made there under. It is only on complying with Rules
14(1) and 14(2) that the applicant could submit letter as provided
under Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 2019 stating that he is commencing
the work of the building, structure etc., and that he is entitled for a
deemed permit. Admittedly the petitioner could not produce any
document to show that he has made any written request as
provided under Rule 14(1) before the village panchayat in this
regard. There is no averment in the writ petition also as the date on
which he has submitted a request as provided under Rule 14(1).
7. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the Tribunal
has rightly found that the petitioner is not entitled for a deemed
permit, for the alleged non-compliance of Rule 14(1) and 14(2) of
the Rules, 2019. The 3rd respondent has already constructed a soak
pit on the basis of Ext.R3(2), valid permit issued by the local
authority. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, it is
2025:KER:68625
specifically stated that there is no suitable area where the soak pit
of the 3rd respondent can be shifted apart from the area where the
permit is already granted and the construction carried out by the
3rd respondent is only for a built up area of 57.10 M 2 in category II,
for which even a permit is not required. Now the soak pit has
already been constructed and if the petitioner is permitted to
construct a well in the property, it will be within 7.5 meters of the
said soak pit, which is impermissible.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find no
reason to interfere with Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Registry shall transit the trial court records to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2025:KER:68625
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41916/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.10.2022
Exhibit P2 ORIGINAL STAY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.11.2021
Exhibit P3 Proposed plan for Building Permit of R3
dated 12-08-2021
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(1) True copy of the application for Building
permit dated 18.08.2021 submitted before
the 1st respondent
Exhibit R3(2) True copy of the building permit
No.Section A1-BA(235078)/2021 dated
12.10.2021 issued by the Panchayath
Exhibit R3(3) True copy of the photographs of well and
tube well in the petitioner's property
Exhibit R3(4) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03.12.2021
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TO THE
SECRETARY TO THE CHALISSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT R 1 ( a ) A true copy of the application dated
21.10.2021 submitted by the petitioner
along with its typed copy
EXHIBIT R 1 ( b ) A true copy of the order dated 17.11.2021
issued by the 1st respondent
EXHIBIT R 1 ( c ) A true copy of the report of the
Assistant Engineer dated 03.12.2021
submitted to the Secretary of the
Panchayath
