Allowed

Sebin K. S. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2022WP(C)/4915/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the Mayor's notice demanding a Development Permit for the petitioner's Building Permit application. Relying on precedent, the court held that Development Permits are not required when construction does not involve land subdivision and ordered the Panchayat to issue the Building Permit.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 communication set aside; direction to respondents to issue Building Permit within one month without insisting on Development Permit.

Sebin K. S. Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SEBIN K. S.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. SUNNY, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS KADAVI HOUSE,
ADATT GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P. O. PURANATTUKARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 551.

¶7

BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAPUR P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 552.

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARAPUR P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 552.

¶12

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No.4915 of 2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2022

¶18

The petitioner wants to construct a residential building in his property extending to 1.5 Ares in Re-Survey No.302/23-1 and 0.94 Square Metres in Re-Survey No.302/26-2 of the Edakalathur Village in Thrissur District. When the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent-Grama Panchayat for grant of Building Permit, he was required to produce a Development Permit.

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made by respondents 2 and 3 for Development Permit for the purpose of allowing his Building Permit application. The petitioner states that he has purchased a small piece of land and does not intend to develop the land in any manner. The petitioner only wants to construct a small residential building. For that purpose, a Development Permit is not required, contended the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.4915 of 2021

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This Court has considered the requirement of Development Permit when small plot holders construct buildings. In Panjal Grama Panchayat, Thrissur and another v. Aneesh P. [2022 (2) KLT 653], this Court held that merely because a larger area is divided into various small plots and provided with roads for ingress and egress to purchasers, Secretary to the Panchayat is not empowered to insist for a Development Permit, when application for Building Permit is submitted by the purchaser.

¶24

This Court has also held in Philip Thomas v. Geologist [2021 (5) KLT 227] that the Building Rules do not provide for issuance of Development Permit in cases where building construction does not involve subdivision of plots. A Development Permit is required only when there is development of land by dividing land into smaller plots. This Court held that unless there is a development of land involving sub division of land into plots, the Local Self Government

¶25

¶26

WP(C) No.4915 of 2021

¶27

Institutions cannot insist for obtaining Development Permit/Layout approval. The petitioner in the present writ petition does not propose to subdivide the land purchased by him.

¶28

In view of the above, Ext.P4 communication is unsustainable and therefore set aside. There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the Building Permit application submitted by the petitioner without insisting for Development Permit and issue Building Permit to the petitioner, within a period of one month, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.4915 of 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4915/2021

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED IN
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER EXECUTED
DATED 21.03.18 BEARING NO.659 OF 18 OF
THE MUNDOOR SRO IN THRISSUR DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 10.03.2020 BY THE EDAKALATHUR
VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE EDAKALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
23.05.19.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY
THESECONDRESPONDENTDATED
19.06.2020.

¶38

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL

Sebin K. S. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebin K. S. v. the State of Kerala

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

M/S.Vishwas Chits & Investments (P) Ltd.(in Liquidation) Vs Sri.Tomy Joseph

Ceevees Imaging and Healthcare Research Private Limited Vs Siemens Ltd./ Seimens Healthcare

Cherian Varkey Construction Company Represented by Reji M Cherian Vs Kef Infrastructure India Pvt.Ltd

Najeena Asharaf Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs the Chairman and Managing Trustee

Cochin Security Press Private Limited Vs Eloor Municipality