Allowed

Vipin C.P v. Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC6 Mar 2023WP(C)/2705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the rejection of building permit applications by a Grama Panchayat, which denied permits due to lack of land development permits. The Court held that since the plots were developed prior to purchase and did not involve new land development as per rules, the Panchayat cannot demand a development permit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications set aside; direction to Panchayat to consider building permit applications without insisting on development permit within three weeks.

Vipin C.P Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2696 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BIJU. O.V AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VASU, 'DIVYA PRABHA', PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678573 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB DIVYA R. NAIR

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 NALLEPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT NALLEPPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 678553 2 THE SECRETARY NALLEPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NALLEPPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678553 BY ADV Nirmal S

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).2705/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶15

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2705 OF 2023

¶16

PETITIONER:

¶17

VIPIN C.P AGED 33 YEARS S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY C.P, PALLIYALIL VEEDU, PALLIKURUP P.O, KARAKKURISSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678593 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB DIVYA R. NAIR

¶18

RESPONDENTS:

¶19

1 NALLEPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT NALLEPPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 678642 2 THE SECRETARY NALLEPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NALLEPPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678642 BY ADV Nirmal S

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).2696/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶24

- - - - W.P.(C). Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶25

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2023

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 communication issued by the 2^nd respondent, marked in both the writ petitions, wherein their application for building permit was rejected for the reason that no land development permit has been obtained by the petitioners before developing their land.

¶28

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2023 has purchased 2.14 ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Block No.37 and Resurvey No.139/8-11 and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2705 of 2023 has purchased 2.02 ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Block No.37 and Re-survey No.140/8-9 in Nalleppilly Village, Chittur Taluk & Palakkad District. Thereafter, the petitioners have applied for a building permit for construction of a house, which have now been rejected by the impugned orders. The petitioners submit that Ext.P2 inter alia says that since the petitioners had purchased a developed land, a land development permit as contemplated under Rule 31 of the Panchayat Building Rules should not be

¶29

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023 : 4 :

¶30

obtained. It is also submitted that the said Rule applies to a builder/real estate developer while developing a large extent of property into an integrated township/residential complex. The petitioners have purchased a small extent of dry land for constructing a residential building and they do not intend to develop land further, as contemplated in the Building Rules, 2019 and therefore, there is no requirement for a land development permit. Therefore, Ext.P2 is legally unsustainable. It is also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of this Court in Nafeesa & Another v. Chavakkad Municipality & Anr. [2018 KHC (3) 473] and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Panjal Grama Panchayat and another v. Aneesh P [2022 (2) KLT 653] , confirming the judgment in Nafeesa case (supra). Relying on the above said judgments, the petitioners submit that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition may be granted.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel of the respondents opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners by filing a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the developer had divided the plots without obtaining a development permit and the same is against law and that is the reason why Ext.P2 order was issued to

¶32

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

the petitioners. It is also submitted that Ext.R1(d) notice has been issued to the developer also.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

Admittedly the petitioners have purchased the property only having a small extent and since the building permit is sought for the construction of a building in the said plot alone and no development defined under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules has been effected within the plots in question, the respondent Panchayat cannot refuse to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for building permit.

¶37

Therefore, Ext.P2 communication is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up the building permit application submitted by the petitioners and to consider and pass orders on the same, strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and without insisting on the production of development permit by the petitioners. Appropriate steps in this regard shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The right of the respondents to proceed against the developer pursuant to Ext.R1(d) notice is left open.

¶38

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023 : 6 :

¶39

With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶42

sm/

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2696/2023

¶46

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO: 73164483 DATED 26.11.2022 ISSUED BY NALLEPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶48

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.26463/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶49

RESPONDENTs' EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit R1 (a) True copy of the Letter No.A4-227/2023 dated 28/01/2023 Exhibit R1 (b) True copy of the letter dated 01-02-2023 Exhibit R1 (c) True copy of the letter No.14/2023 dated 07-02-2023 issued by Village Officer, Nallepilly Exhibit R1 (d) True copy of the letter No.400804/BAUV01/GA/2023/227(1) dated 1901-2023

¶51

: 8 :

¶52

W.P.(C).Nos.2696 & 2705 of 2023

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2705/2023

¶54

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶55

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO: 72480528 DATED 11.11.2022 ISSUED BY NALLEPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE. Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.26463/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶56

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit R1 (a) True copy of the Letter No.A4-227/2023 dated 28/01/2023 Exhibit R1 (b) True copy of the letter dated 01-02-2023 Exhibit R1 (c) True copy of the letter No.14/2023 dated 07-02-2023 Exhibit R1 (d) True copy of the letter No.400804/BAUV01/GA/2023/227(1) dated 1901-2023

Vipin C.P v. Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin C.P v. Nalleppilly 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xavier Thomas, Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Laya Jose P.J. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

O.Y. Pathrose, Vs District Panchayat

Biju. O.V Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Aloscious Decrus @ Aloshy Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Alias Vs Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency (Ksrrda)