Kerala High Court
Paul Varghese vs Aikkaranad Grama Panchayath on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PAUL VARGHESE,
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF P.M.VARGHESE, MYALIL, KOLENCHERRY P.O.,
AIKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682311
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 AIKKARANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AIKKARANAD NORTH, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
682311
2 THE SECRETARY,
AIKKARANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AIKKARANAD NORTH,
KADAYIRIPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682311
BY ADV SHRI.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, AIKARANAD
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON 17.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25880 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of a
property covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt and
situated within the territorial limits of the 1 st respondent-
Panchayat. The petitioner proposes to construct a
building in the said property. Accordingly, the petitioner
had submitted an application for building permit along
with Ext.P3 building plan. The construction can be
carried out only after extraction and removal of soil.
However, by Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has
rejected the application without notice to the petitioner
or affording him an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P4
order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1
and 2 it is stated that the petitioner had submitted an
application to construct seven buildings for special
residential purposes. The petitioner also submitted a
proposal for levelling 1540.476 square metres by
removing 9874.025 cubic metres of earth. In the joint
site inspection conducted by the Secretary and the
Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat, it was found that
there is a cutting of 3.675 metres from the road level. If
the cutting is made to the road level on the east and
north side of the plot, it will further lower down the soil
level, which will damage the road and nearby houses.
Moreover, there is also a water tank near the said plot.
There is a possibility of environmental damage. It is the
responsibility of the Panchayat to protect the interest of
the people in the Panchayat. Furthermore, the earth can
be removed only with the approval of the Mining and
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
Geology Department. There is no illegality in Ext.P4
order.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the application has been rejected without
considering Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Building
Rules, 2019. The reasons stated in Ext.P4 order is
untenable. Notwithstanding, the said order, the
petitioner is prepared to submit a revised application for
building permit, if there is any material defect in the
present application. Therefore, Ext.P4 may be quashed
and the 2nd respondent may be directed to reconsider the
application for building permit.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner has an
alternative statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore, this
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
Court may not entertain the writ petition. There is no
illegality in Ext.P4 order. It is considering the danger to
the lives of the people of the Panchayat that the 2 nd
respondent passed Ext.P4 order. If at all the petitioner
desires to file a revised application for building permit,
he is at liberty to submit the same.
6. On an anxious consideration of the rival
pleadings, materials on record and the submissions made
across the Bar, I am of the firm view that,
notwithstanding the alternative statutory remedy, the
petitioner can be permitted to resubmit a fresh
application, in accordance with law, before the 2 nd
respondent. Nonetheless, I do not find any justifiable
ground to quash Ext.P4 order.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dispose of this
writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a
fresh/revised application for building permit, as
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
envisaged under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules,
2019, notwithstanding Ext.P4 order. If such an
application is filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider and
dispose of the application in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner
an opportunity of being heard.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:68610
WP(C) NO. 25880 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25880/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
03.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 03.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN INCLUDING THE
DETAILS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT BY
CUTTING EARTH
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.6.2024
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
