Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAllowed; Ext.P2 set aside; building permit appl...

Consolidated WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.8727/2022; 8840/2022; 8844/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • T. R. Ravi
Judgment Date
2022-04-01
Court Decision / Holding
In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. Ext.P2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applicants’ building permit applications without insisting on production of a development permit. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Allowed; Ext.P2 set aside; building permit applications to be considered without development permit; orders to be issued within six weeks.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jacob P Mathew
  • Vinay
  • Janardhanan

Respondents

  • KattaKampal Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary, KattaKampal P.O., Thrissur District, PIN-680 544
  • The Secretary, KattaKampal Grama Panchayat, KattaKampal P.O., Thrissur District, PIN-680 544

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.A.Chacko
  • • C.M.Charisma Alekh
  • • Thomas Babu
  • • V.P.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.N.Abhilash
  • • Sunil Nair Palakkat

Case Synopsis & Summary

The three writ petitions challenge Ext.P2, communications directing the petitioners to produce land development certificates where construction is sought on plots subdivided from larger tracts. The petitioners contend that demanding a development permit is unnecessary for small extents purchased from larger holdings, and that Ext.P2 imposes an unwarranted hurdle to grant of building permits. The Kerala High Court recalls its own ruling in WA No.1288/2019, which held that buyers acquiring small extents from larger lands should not be forced to produce a development permit for building permissions; this doctrine was corroborated by a Division Bench in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018(3) KLT 1). The court applies this precedent to these petitions, finding Ext.P2 untenable in the present context. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed, Ext.P2 is set aside, and respondents are directed to consider the applicants’ building permit applications without insisting on a development permit. Necessary orders are to be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The decision reiterates judicial safeguards for small plot purchasers against procedural impediments in development approvals.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • No requirement of land development permit for purchases of small extents from larger extents (per WA 1288/2019 and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality).
  • Authority for Local Self Government to require development permits must be aligned with judicial carve-outs for small plots; the bench reiterated that drawbacks in Ext.P2 are not sanctioned by law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that small extents purchased from larger parcels should not require the land development certificate or development permit; Ext.P2 is therefore unnecessary for grant of building permissions, and the court should apply the established precedents that protect such purchasers from being unduly burdened by additional permit requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
WA No.1288/2019WA 1288/2019PositiveCourt held that buyers purchasing small extents from larger lands should not be compelled to produce a development permit for building permissions.
Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality2018(3) KLT 1PositiveDivision Bench confirmed the earlier judgment supporting the same proposition.
WPC 20426/2020WPC 20426/2020Mentioned OnlyExhibit; judgment cited as related authority but not discussed in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Consolidated WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 8727 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **JACOB P.MATHEW AGED 60 YEARS S/O JACOB, PANACKAL HOUSE, GREEN GARDEN, THEKKEPURAM, CHITTANJOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 523** **BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO C.M.CHARISMA ALEKH THOMAS BABU V.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544. 2 THE SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KATTAKAMPAL P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544.** **BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8840/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8840 OF 2022** **PETITIONER:** **VINAY AGED 41 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN, VADAKKUMCHERI HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 505.** **BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO C.M.CHARISMA ALEKH THOMAS BABU V.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544.** **2 THE SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KATTAKAMPAL P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544.** **BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8727/2022, 8844/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8844 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **JANARDHANAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN, SREE PADMAM, KOCHAUTTUVALAPPIL, KOTTAPPADY P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 505.** **BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO C.M.CHARISMA ALEKH THOMAS BABU V.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680544** - **2 THE SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KATTAKAMPAL P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544.** **BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8840/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 4 ## **JUDGMENT** **[WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022]** ``` In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 communications issued by the 1[st] respondent directing them to produce land development certificate, as it is seen that the area where the construction is sought to be made has been developed and subdivided as plots. ``` ``` 2.This Court has in WA No.1288/2019, held that in cases where persons are purchasing small extents of land from out of the larger extents of land, the Local Self Government Authority shall not insist on the production of development permit by such purchasers. The Division Bench had confirmed the earlier judgment in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality [2018(3) KLT 1]. ``` ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` **==> picture [6 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In the light of the law laid down by this Court, these writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P2 communications in all these cases are set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for building permit without insisting on production of a development permit. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` **Sd/-** **T.R.RAVI JUDGE** ``` spk ``` ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 6 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8727/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.4.2021 ISSUED FROM PAZHANJI VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 4.2.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.6.2019 IN WA NO 1288/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20426/2020 DATED 18.11.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL** ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8840/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.7.2021 ISSUED FROM PANZHANJI VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 4.2.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.6.2019 IN WA NO 1288/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20426/2020 DATED 18.11.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL** ``` WP(C) Nos.8727/2022, 8840/2022, 8844/2022 ``` 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8844/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.7.2021 ISSUED FROM PAZHANJI VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 4.2.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.6.2019 IN WA NO 1288/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20426/2020 DATED 18.11.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL**