Suresh vs Vellangallur Grama Panchayath

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SURESH AGED 48 YEARS D/O.DHAKSHAYANIAMMA, PULIYATH HOUSE, VELAYANADU, VELLANGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 662.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SH-22, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 123.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **2** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 12193 of 2020 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in the Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows : _That the Petitioner is highly aggrieved by rejecting the application for numbering the residential building. The petitioner and his wife is the absolute owner and in possession of property having an extent of 2.08 Ares of property obtained under Sale Deed No-1824/2017 of Vadakkumkara SRO and the petitioner is in possession of the property and land tax is duly remitted by him from time to time. That the petitioner approached the respondent Panchayath for building permit in the year 2018 and respondent Panchayath issued general building permit on 24.05.2018. After obtaining Ext.P3 general building permit, petitioner started the construction of the residential building. Thereafter applied for_ _numbering the residential building before the respondent Panchayath. But Respondent Panchayath rejected the numbering of the residential building through communication dated 12.11.2019. That by Ext.P4 communication the respondent Panchayath informed the Petitioner that for numbering the residential building requires documents pertaining to_ **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **3** _plot sub-division. Only after submitting documents related to plot subdivision by the petitioner, the building number can be issued. As per the reported judgments in_ _**Jayasree chakalakkal Vs. Kolazhy Grama Panchayath** {WPC No:23281/2011};_ _**Nafeesa & Another Vs.Chavakkad Municipality & Others** {2018(3) KLT 1} and_ _**Shine.A.G Vs.Vellangallur Grama Panchayath** {WPC No:28614/2019 this Court has held that Panchayath cannot insist that he should obtain a development plan. When a person intends to make a construction in a small portion of a land without developing it as construed under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, a development plan cannot be insisted upon particularly when the extent is very small. The case on hand property having an extent of 2.08 Ares of land only. Hence, the judgments relied above are squarely applicable in its full force to the petitioner's case also. That the petitioner completed the construction of the residential building on the strength of Ext.P3 general building permit issued by the respondent Panchayath. Now the stand taken by the respondent Panchayath is illegal and unjust._ 2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers : _i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to Respondent to reconsider the application for numbering the residential building on Exhibit-P1 property. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for records leading to issuance of Exhibit-P4 communications and set aside the same.”_ **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **4** 3. Heard Sri.P.Paulochan Antony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to respondent (Vellangallur Grama Panchayat) will stand dispensed with. 4. According to the petitioner, he has lawfully obtained Ext.P3 building permit dated 24.5.2018 issued by the respondent Panchayat strictly in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and the applicable guidelines. That the subject property covered by Ext.P3 building permit is hardly of the extent of 2.08 ares as can be seen from Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 Land Tax Receipt. Now, the petitioner has completed the construction and has thereafter, applied for numbering of the residential building before the respondentPanchayat. At that time, the respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued the impugned Ext.P4 letter dated 12.11.2019 ordering that petitioner should produce development permit in terms of the Building Rules before his application for building numbering can be considered. 5. The main case of the petitioner is to the effect that such a stand as the one in impugned Ext.P4 cannot be lawfully taken by the respondentPanchayat for the simple reason that the respondent has duly issued Ext.P3 building permit and the petitioner has acted upon the said stand of the respondent and has duly completed the construction and all what remains is only the numbering of the residential building. Therefore, at this **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **5** juncture, the respondent Panchayat has totally estopped from taking a stand as the one in Ext.P4 even if it is assumed that it is otherwise legally justifiable and that the impugned order is liable to be rescinded and set aside by this Court on that main ground. 6. Alternatively, the petitioner would also point out that since the subject property involved in the residential building construction as per Ext.P3 building permit is hardly 2.08 ares, there is no question of applicability or requirement of a development permit as development permit is envisaged only for large extent of property and not for extremely small extent of property like the one in the instant case, which is hardly of 2.08 ares. That issue of the matter is fully concluded in favour of the petitioner in decisions as in _**Nafeesa and anr.** v._ _**Chavakkad Municipality and others**_ [2018 (3)KLT 1], _**Jayasree Chakkalakkal** v._ _**Kolazhy Grama Panchayat**_ , (judgment in W.P.(C.) No.23281/2011), _**Shine A.G** .v._ _**Vellangallur Grama Panchayath**_ (judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 28614/2019) as well as the recent judgment of this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 12111/2020 ( _**Mercy Thomas** v._ _**Vellangallur Grama Panchayath**_ ) and that two of the abovementioned judgments are pertaining to the very same respondent Grama Panchayat. 7. After consideration of the matter with reference to the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the abovesaid vital and relevant contentions of the petitioner have not even been remotely **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **6** adverted to and considered by the respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat while taking the impugned decision as per Ext.P4. Moreover, petitioner has got a specific case that he has not been heard before taking the adverse decision as per Ext.P4. Therefore, on the sole ground of the flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, the matter will have to be interdicted as it would require serious reconsideration at the hands of the Secretary. For effectuating such a remit, it is ordered that the impugned decision as per Ext.P4 dated 12.11.2019 will stand set aside and quashed. The application of the petitioner for numbering of the residential building covered by Ext.P3 building permit will stand remitted to the respondentSecretary of the Grama Panchayat for consideration and decision afresh. 8. The respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat will immediately afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/counsel, if any and then should consider the abovesaid contentions more particularly, the contention that the respondent is now legally estopped from taking a stand as the one in Ext.P4 and also the issue that the matter is covered in favour of the petitioner as per the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgments inasmuch as the subject property is hardly of the extent of 2.08 ares and therefore, there is no question of requirement of development permit in a case like this. Orders in the matter should be duly passed by the respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat without much delay, **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **7** preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment after duly adverting to and considering all the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner may ensure that the copy of the memorandum of this W.P.(C.) with all the exhibits as well as the certified copy of the judgment and the written submissions of the petitioner in this matter, along with copies of the aforecited judgments may be forwarded to the respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, without any further delay for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS **WP(C).No.12193 OF 2020(Y)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1824/2017 OF VADAKKUMKARA SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 05/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT DATED 24/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A47456/2019 DATED 12/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.**