Allowed

Riyas P.S v. Panjal Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC9 Dec 2022WP(C)/29900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition directing the Secretary to the Panjal Grama Panchayat to reconsider the building permit application. The Court held that a Development Permit is not required since the land purchase did not involve subdivision of plots.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application without insisting on a Development Permit and to take a decision within one month.

Riyas P.S Vs Panjal Grama Panchayat — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 29900 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1RIYAS P.S
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SIDDIKK.P.M, ENGINEER, PUTHENTHERUVIL HOUSE,
GANASSAGIRI.P.O, PINCODE-679123,
SHOURANUR- 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 RASIYA.V.R, AGED 28 YEARS W/O.RIYAS.P.S, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, PUTHENTHERUVIL HOUSE, GANASSERRY.P.O, PINCODE-679123, SHORANUR-1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.
G.G.MANOJ
S.SARATH PRASAD
K.B.MOHANAN
RAMAKRISHNAN M.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT PANJAL.P.O, PANJAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE-679531, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANJALP.O, PANJAL, PINCODE-679531, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

BY ADV P.C SASIDHARAN-R1 AND R2
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) No.29900 of 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2022

¶20

The petitioners, who have purchased an extent of 05.06 Ares of land in Panjal Village in Thalappilly Taluk of Thrissur District, have approached this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue Building Permit to the petitioners on the basis of the Building Permit application submitted by them for the property owned by the petitioners as per Ext.P1, without insisting for the Development Permit demanded by them as per Ext.P3, within a time limit taking into account the dictum laid down by this Court in a decision reported in Nafeesa and another v. Chavakkad Municipality and others [2018 (3) KHC 473] and Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P [2022 (2) KHC 775] .

¶21

The petitioners state that they purchased an extent of 05.06 Ares of land in the year 2020. The petitioners

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No.29900 of 2022

¶24

applied for a Building Permit. The 2^nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat insisted that the petitioners shall produce a Development Permit in order to get a Building Permit. It is aggrieved by the said stand of the 2^nd respondent that the petitioners are before this Court.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners only want to construct a house and do not intend to develop any property. If the petitioners have purchased land from a person holding a larger extent of area, that by itself will not justify the insistence for Development Permit.

¶26

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that since the plot of the petitioners is forming part of a larger area, a Development Permit is indeed necessary in the light of the provisions

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.29900 of 2022

¶29

contained in the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

This Court has considered the question of requirement of a Development Permit for obtaining a Building Permit. In Philip Thomas v. Geologist [2021(5)

¶33

KLT 227] , this Court held that the Building Rules do not provide for issuance of Development Permit in cases where building construction does not involve sub division of plots. A Development Permit under the Building Rules is required only when there is development of land by dividing land into plots. In the petitioners’ case, the petitioners do not intend to subdivide any land into plots.

¶34

In view of the law laid down by this Court as above, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to reconsider their

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No.29900 of 2022

¶37

decision in Ext.P3.

¶38

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to reconsider the application referred in Ext.P3, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Philip Thomas (supra) . A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month. To enable respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision afresh, Ext.P3 is set aside. It is, however, made clear that if there are any other defects or Building Rules violations pointed out by the 1^st respondent-Grama Panchayat, the petitioners will be liable to set right the same.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.29900 of 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29900/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1326
OF 2020 DATED 27.11.2020 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, CHELAKKARA.
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, PANJAL VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE HAVING
NO.B2-2021/1079DATED24.11.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS.

¶47

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS : NIL

Riyas P.S v. Panjal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas P.S v. Panjal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kochi Municipal Corporation, Vs District Collector

Ajit Associates Architectural Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Rajendra Kumar Vs the District Collector

V.N.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

P.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Vinay Mohan Kwatra

Hynse Aprem Vs the Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat