High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-13Writ petition disposed of as above; Ext.P4 set ...

Roney Jose and Rose Maria John v Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, The Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, The State of Kerala, and The District Town Planner

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 31496 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: The court set aside Ext.P4 and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the building permit application without insisting on development permit or lay out approval, if otherwise in order, within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with a clarification that the Panchayat may proceed against the vendor/predecessor in interest for any unlawful development in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of as above; Ext.P4 set aside; building permit application to be considered without development permit or lay out approval within six weeks, if otherwise in order; no impediment to action against vendor for unlawful development.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Roney Jose
Rose Maria John

Respondents

Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, Kottayam, Athirampuzha, Kerala represented by its Secretary
The Secretary Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, Kottayam, Athirampuzha, Kerala
The State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
The District Town Planner, District Town Planning Office, Kottayam District, Kerala (Impleaded as per order dated 24-01-24 in IA 1/24 in WPC 31496/23)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Luke J Chirayil

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv Varughese M Easo, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 31496 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam concerns a request for a building permit for constructing a residential building on a land extent of 12.82 ares (as per Ext.P1 sale deed). The petitioners contend that their land is a small plot and does not require a development permit under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, arguing that subdivision of land into plots or development of land in such narrow circumstances is not applicable to them. Respondents opposing the petition submit that a development permit is necessary where there is development of land or subdivision of land into plots, and that no development permit was obtained before subdivision. The court references two precedents, Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality, to reiterate that for small plots intended for a residential building, a development permit is not mandatory prior to a building permit. Relying on these decisions, the court sets aside Ext.P4 and directs the second respondent to consider the building permit application without insisting on development permit or lay out approval, within six weeks if the application is otherwise in order. The judgment clarifies that the Panchayat may still proceed against any vendor for unlawful development as per law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019Rule 31(1)(xii)Proviso to Rule 3(1)(D)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that a development permit under Rule 31(1)(xii) is not required for a small plot intended for residential construction, citing the decisions in Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality to support exemption for small plots. They asserted that their land is a small plot (<0.5 hectare) and subdivision did not necessitate development permission before obtaining a building permit. They urged the Court to permit building without a development permit, provided other building norms are satisfied.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that development of land or subdivision into plots triggers the need for a development permit under Rule 31(1)(xii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, and that no development permit was obtained prior to subdivision. They emphasized that the Panchayat’s revenue concerns justify requiring the development permit and lay out approval, and that the proviso to Rule 3(1)(D) prohibits issuing a building permit for plots subdivided unauthorisedly.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P	2022 (2) KLT 653	Positive	The court cites Panjal to support the proposition that for small plots intended for residential construction, a development permit is not mandatory; this precedent underpins the disposal direction to permit building without a development permit.
Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality	2018 (3) KLT 1	Positive	Nafeesa is cited for the same principle, reinforcing that for small plots, a development permit may not be required prior to a building permit, which aligns with the court’s order.

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 Roney Jose and Rose Maria John v Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, The Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, The State of Kerala, and The District Town Planner 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 RONEY JOSE AGED 36 YEARS SON OF JOSE T.J THEKKANAL HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, AMALAGIRI P.O, KOTTAYAM KERALA, PIN - 686561** - **2 ROSE MARIA JOHN AGED 36 YEARS** **WIFE OF RONEY JOSE T THEKKANAL HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, AMALAGIRI P.O, KOTTAYAM KERALA, PIN - 686561** ## **BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT KOTTAYAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686562** - **2 THE SECRETARY ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 686562** - **3 ADDL.R3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001** - **4 ADDL.R4. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686002 (ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24-01-24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC 31496/23)** **BY ADVS. ADV VARUGHESE M EASO GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 2 :** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are the owners in possession of an extent of 12.82 Ares of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioners submitted an application for building permit for the construction of a residential building in the said property before the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent, by Ext.P4, returned the said application stating that the 1[st] petitioner has to obtain lay out approval of the District Town Planner under Rule 31(1)(xii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and that as per the proviso to Rule 3(1)(D), building permit cannot be issued in respect of plots unauthorisedly **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 4 :** subdivided. The petitioners state that he has purchased only a small extent of land which is less than 0.5 Hectares for the construction of a residential building and there is no need to obtain a development permit or lay out approval of the District Town Planner under Rule 31(1)(xii) of the Rules. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the property owned by the petitioners is a part of large extent of property and subdivision of larger extent of property requires the obtaining of development permit under Rule 31(1)(xii) of the Rules. It is stated that before the property was subdivided, no development permit has been obtained. **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 5 :** 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of this Court in **Panjal Grama Panchayat** v. **Aneesh.P** [2022 (2) KLT 653) and **Nafeesa** v. **Chavakkad Municipality** [2018 (3) KLT 1] and submits that in respect of small extent of property, where a person intends to construct a residential building, there is no necessity for obtaining a development permit. Sri.Easo, the learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that development of land without obtaining development permit has resulted in loss of revenue to the Panchayat. **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 6 :** 5. A development permit, under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 is required only when there is development of land or sub division of land into plots. For the purpose of construction of residential building in a small plot of land, a development permit is not required. In **Nafeesa** (supra), this Court held as follows: “5.... unless in the hands of the purchaser of the smaller portion of land, an activity which attracts the definition of 'development of land, as noticed above, is involved, there would be no requirement for a person purchasing a plot of land for putting up a construction therein, to obtain a development permit prior to applying for a building permit for the said construction.” 6. **Nafeesa** (supra) was referred to and the **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 7 :** dictum laid down therein was reiterated by the Division Bench in **Panjal** (supra). 7. In the light of the decisions in **Panjal** and **Nafeesa** (supra), I set aside Ext.P4. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for building permit, without insisting for development permit or lay out approval, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if the application is otherwise in order. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 2[nd] respondent for due compliance. 8. It is made clear that this judgment will not impede the Panchayat from proceeding against **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 8 :** the vendor/predecessor in interest of the petitio ers who had done the alleged development of land in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C) NO. 31496 OF 2023 : 9 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 22.07.2022 NUMBERED AS 1946/2022 OF ETTUMANOOR S.R.O. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 15.06.2023 HAVING FILE NO.400476/BPRL01/GPO/2023/7398 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.06.2023 HAVING RECEIPT NO. 1230102076/G050303 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2023 NUMBERED AS 400476/BPRL01/GENERAL/2023/4614/ (1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 08.05.2023 HAVING RECEIPT NO. KL05030406078/2023 OF THANDA PER NO. 21098 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.08.2023 IN W.P. (C) NO. 21868 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 12.04.2023 IN W.P. (C) NO. 13134 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED 02.02.2023 IN W.P. (C) NO. 1507 OF 2023 AND W.P. (C) NO. 1498 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**