Petitioner challenged denial of building permit citing lack of development plan. Court set aside orders requiring plan and ordered application consideration.
Exhibits P2 and P3 set aside. Building permit application to be considered within one month without development plan.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33949 of 2015 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
C.N.NATARAJAN
S/O.NEELAKANDAN, ROSE GARDENS, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAIPARAMBU, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 546.
2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
Addl. 3. GANDIMATHI HOMES PVT. LTD.
MADASSERY BUILDINGS, NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SAJI PAUL
(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 27.11.2015 IN I.A. NO. 17005/2015)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KAIPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ P KUNJACHAN R BY SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN, SC, KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33949 of 2015 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATGION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/2/15 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4/8/15 IN APPEAL NO.255/15 OF 2ND RESPONDENT
P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29/7/15 IN WPC NO.2193/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
Dated this the 07th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of building
permit, on the ground that the development permit, for the land from which the petitioner had purchased a portion, has not been produced. The petitioner purchased 6.12 cents of land in Survey No.2687/2 of Peramangalam Village and filed an application as evidenced at Ext.P1 for building construction. The same was responded to by Ext.P2. Ext.P2 found that on inspection, it was disclosed that small holdings were divided as plots from a larger holding and in such circumstance, directed the petitioner to produce the development permit. An appeal filed before the Tribunal was also disposed of by Ext.P3 recording the contention of the petitioner that the development plan would be submitted.
the submission recorded by the Tribunal was on a wrong
WPC.No.33949/2015
: 2 :
understanding and there is no possibility of a development plan being submitted by the petitioner who purchased only a small plot. It is also submitted that the binding precedents of this Court would
show that on division of small plots from a larger extent, it cannot
be said to be a development activity.
WP(C) No.2193/2015. In the said writ petition a similar situation
was considered by this Court. The relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 were referred, to find that there can be no development alleged on mere division of a large extent of property. A number of decisions of this Court were relied on to find that there was no requirement for development permit to consider a building permit application.
that any development was effected on the larger extent of property
but for dividing it into small plots and providing access by laying
WPC.No.33949/2015
: 3 :
roads. The property of the petitioner itself is 6.12 cents, a small
holding where the petitioner desires to construct a residential building. There is nothing to indicate that the property, in which
the petitioner intends to construct, is other than garden land. In such circumstance, Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside. The building permit application filed by the petitioner shall be considered
within a period of one month, even without development plan.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
jma
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) //true copy//
P.A to Judge
C.N.NATARAJAN
KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
GANDIMATHI HOMES PVT. LTD.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
