High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-13Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

Toms Pakkuparambil and Priya Jose v Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext. P4 and directing the 2nd respondent to consider the building-permit application without insisting on a development permit or lay-out approval, provided the application is otherwise in order, and to do so within six weeks. The court clarified that this judgment will not prevent the Panchayat from taking action against the vendor for any development done in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Toms Pakkuparambil
Priya Jose

Respondents

Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary
The Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat
The State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary
The District Town Planner, District Town Planning Office, Kottayam District (Addl. Respondents 3 and 4)

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 concerns the construction rights of two owners (Toms Pakkuparambil and Priya Jose) on a 2.90 Ares plot covered by Ext. P1 sale deed. The petition seeks a building permit for a residential building, which the 2nd respondent (District Town Planner) refused under the proviso to Rule 3(1)(D) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, citing the need for a subdivision development permit. The petitioners had purchased a small plot (less than 0.5 hectares) and argued that, for such a small plot, there is no necessity to obtain development permit or subdivision layout approval under Rule 31(1)(xii). Respondents contended that the property is part of a larger tract and any subdivision would require development permission, which had not been obtained. The court referenced Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P (2022 (2) KLT 653) and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018 (3) KLT 1) to support the proposition that development permits are not required for constructing on a small plot. On this basis, Ext. P4 was set aside, and the court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the building permit application without insisting on a development permit or lay-out approval, within six weeks, if the application is otherwise in order. The judgment clarifies it will not impede actions against the vendor for any lawful development. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners relied on Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P (2022 (2) KLT 653) and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018 (3) KLT 1) to contend that, for a small extent of land intended for a residential building, a development permit is not necessary. They argued that the development permit and subdivision lay-out approval under Rule 31(1)(xii) are not triggered for a small plot, especially where construction is contemplated on a portion of land already in possession.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayat contended that development of land without a development permit causes revenue loss and that subdivision of land into plots necessitates obtaining such permit under the Rules. They maintained that no development permit had been obtained prior to subdivision and that the law requires compliance with development permissions even for small plots when a subdivision is involved.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh.P	2022 (2) KLT 653	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that development permits are not required for small plots where construction is for residential purposes.
Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality	2018 (3) KLT 1	Positive	Cited for the dictum that where activity does not amount to 'development of land' in the purchaser’s hands, a development permit is not required prior to building permit for construction on a small plot.

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 Toms Pakkuparambil and Priya Jose v Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat and others 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. 36034 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 TOMS PAKKUPARAMBIL, AGED 51 YEARS SON OF SRI. DEVASSYA CHACKO, PAKKUPARAMBIL HOUSE AMALAGIRI, ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, AMALAGIRI P.O. KERALA, PIN - 686561** **2 PRIYA JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS WIFE OF SRI. TOMS PAKKUPARAMBIL PAKKUPARAMBIL HOUSE AMALAGIRI, ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 686561** ## **BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT KOTTAYAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 686562** - **2 THE SECRETARY ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 686562** - ***3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA** - **4 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA (ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 IN I.A.NO.1/2024)** **BY ADVS. ADV VARUGHESE M EASO GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **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. 36034 OF 2023 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are the owners in possession of an extent of 2.90 Ares of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The 1[st] submitted an petitioner 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, rejected the said application stating that as per the proviso to Rule 3(1)(D) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), building permit cannot be issued in respect of plots unauthorisedly subdivided and the application can be considered only on approval of subdivision lay out by the **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 3 :** District Town Planner. The petitioners state that they have 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 approval of lay out subdivision of land 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. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 4 :** 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 there is no building, 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. 5. A development permit, under the Kerala **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 5 :** 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 dictum laid down therein was reiterated by the Division Bench in **Panjal** (supra). **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 6 :** 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 petitioners 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 the vendor/predecessor in interest of the petitioners who had done the alleged development of land, in **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 7 :** accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 8 :** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36034/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13.10.2021 NUMBERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 2222/2021 OF ETTUMANOOR S.R.O.** **Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 05.07.2023 HAVING FILE NO. 400476/PTAL01/GPO/2023/8008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.06.2023 HAVING RECEIPT NO. KL05030408941/2023 ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS** - **Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 NUMBERED AS 400476/PTAL01/GPO/2023/8008/(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT DATED 20.01.2022 HAVING PERMIT NO. A4-BA(25047)/2022 ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS** - **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** **WP(C) NO. 36034 OF 2023 : 9 :** ## **COURT OF KERALA** ## **RESPONDENT ANNEXURES** **Annexure R1(a) True copy Of the letter No 400476/ PTAL01/ GPO/2023/ 8008(2) dated 22/09/2023 issued by the 2nd respondent to the Internal Vigilance Officer Of the department of LSGD**