Allowed

Vinod P R v. Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/6149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed challenging rejection of building permit applications. The court held that purchasers of small plots from larger extents are not liable to secure land development permits, following precedent. The petitions were allowed, and the notice rejecting the applications was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed; the notice rejecting applications was set aside; respondents directed to consider building permit applications within one month.

Vinod P R Vs Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6149 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VINOD P R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHAN ILLATH HOUSE, THIRUVILLWAMALA P.O. VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 588

¶8

BY ADV SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THIRUVILLWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THRUVILLWAMALA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN- 680 588

¶11

2 SECRETARY, THIRUVILLWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THRUVILLWAMALA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 588

¶12

BY ADVS. BRIJESH MOHAN R.RAJPRADEEP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NOS.6149 & 6153 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶19

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 6153 OF 2022

¶20

PETITIONERS:

¶21

1 MADHUSOODANAN R AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RAMANKUTTY, THADATHIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARAMBU P.O, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE, PATTIPPARAMBU DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 588.

¶22

2 SARITHA P.R AGED 39 YEARS W/O. MADHUSOODANAN R, THADATHIL HOUSE, P ATTIPPARAMBU P.O, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE, PATTIPPARAMBU DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 588.

¶23

BY ADV SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THIRUVILLWAMALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 588.

¶26

2 SECRETARY THIRUVILLWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THIRUVILLWAMALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 588.

¶27

BY ADV BRIJESH MOHAN

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).6149/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C) NOS.6149 & 6153 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶32

 WP(C) Nos.6149 & 6153 OF 2022
-------------------------------------------
.
 Dated this the 04thday of April, 2022

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The writ petitions have been filed challenging the
rejection of the request for grant of a building permit on the
ground that the petitioners have to submit development
permit as the plots where the building was sought to be
constructed are part of a larger extent which had been
divided into smaller plots. The issue whether the Local Self
Government Institution can insist on production of
development permit in such cases was considered by this
Court in the judgment in Nafeesa and Another V.
Chavakkad Municipality and others reported in 2018 (3)
KHC 473 and it was held that the purchaser of a small plot
from a larger extent is not liable to secure any land
development permit. The above judgment came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in WA
No.185 of 2022 and this Court by judgment dated
25.03.2022 confirmed the dictum laid down in Nafeesa's
case (supra).

¶35

WP(C) NOS.6149 & 6153 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

In the above circumstances, the writ petitions are
allowed. Ext.P5 in WP(C)No.6153 of 2022 stands set aside.
Ext.P5 in 6149 of 2022 to the extent it shows one of the
reason for rejection as failure to produce development
permit is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider
the applications for building permit, submitted by the
petitioners, without insisting on production of a development
permit, at the earliest, at any rate within one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

T.R.RAVI

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

sn

¶42

WP(C) NOS.6149 & 6153 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6149/2022

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED TITLE DEED NO 3293/1/2012 DATED 22.11.2012 OF SRO PAZHAYANNUR FOR AN EXTENT OF 1.78 ARES OF LAND SITUATED IN SURVEY NO 903 OF KANIYARKODE VILLAGE
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 15.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONS

¶47

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶48

WP(C) NOS.6149 & 6153 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6153/2022

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED TITLE DEED NO. 2043/1/2012 DATED 6.7.2012 OF SRO PAZHAYANNUR FOR AN EXTENT OF 1.90 ARES OF LAND SITUATED IN SURVEY NO. 903 OF KANIYARKODE VILLAGE.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 12.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS	: NIL
//	TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Vinod P R v. Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod P R v. Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishna Kurup Vs Senior Geologist

R Unnikrishnan., Vs Senior Geologist

Biju @ Varghese P. K. Vs the Secretary

M.Y. Elias Vs the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath

Madhusoodanan R Vs Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath

Maimu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector