High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-09-30Writ petitions disposed with directions: grant ...

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 7598 of 2019 (Y) and 8510 of 2019 (K) - Jinto V. Jose v Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath and Geo Paul C.G & Nitsa Vincent v Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).7598/2019 (Y); WP(C).8510/2019 (K)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-09-30
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed in part. The court directs the Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath to consider the petitioners’ applications for building permits de hors the development plan requirement, after following all necessary procedures and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of this judgment. The Panchayath must ensure compliance with all other applicable statutes and Building Rules. The judgment clarifies that the court’s order pertains to the entitlement to obtain building permits without the development-plan condition, and does not permit a generalized abolition of statutory prerequisites beyond the stated process.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed with directions: grant building permits without the development-plan requirement after proper procedures and within one month, ensuring compliance with all other statutory and regulatory requirements; the entitlement is limited to this direction and does not negate applicable law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jinto V. Jose
Geo Paul C.G
Nitsa Vincent

Respondents

Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath
The Secretary, Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.A. Chacko
• C.M. Charisma
• Megha K. Xavier

Counsels for Respondents

• C. Harikumar
• Renjith Rajappan
• Harikrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The two connected writ petitions arose from petitions by landowners seeking building permits from Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath for small plots of land, each less than 4 Ares. The Panchayath demanded a development plan, prompting petitions contending that such a requirement contravened precedent and statutory norms. The petitions rely on Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality and Ext.P6 (the WA 1290/2019 judgment) to assert entitlement to building permits de hors the development plan requirement. The respondents argued that past applications, including a combined 246.5 cents, and the necessity of a development plan are legitimate concerns; they alleged possible camouflage in splitting applications to circumvent proper procedure. The court, noting analogous factual matrices and interlinked reliefs, observed that the Division Bench’s WA No.1290/2019 and Nafeesa had already rejected the Panchayath’s stance. The judge directed the Panchayath to consider the applicants’ building-permit applications without the development-plan prerequisite, after following due process and within one month, while ensuring compliance with all legal requirements and Building Rules. The decision clarifies that the entitlement relates to permits in terms of law, not blanket waivers beyond the stated procedural safeguards. The petitions were disposed with directions, maintaining judicial caution against circumvention of statutory safeguards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that building permits should be issued without the development plan requirement, citing Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018) and Ext.P6 WA 1290/2019 in support of entitlement. They argue the development-plan condition is not mandated for small plots and that denial is contrary to law and prior judicial directions. They pray for issuance of building permits de hors the development plan, subject to compliance with other prevailing statutes and regulations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that building permits cannot bypass statutory requirements and stress that the earlier, large consolidated applications and the anticipated development plan are legitimate prerequisites. They contend Ext.P6 may not be applicable universally and emphasize the risk of camouflage or evasion of due process. They urge the court to respect established procedural safeguards and deny blanket waivers of development-plan requirements without proper procedures.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality	2018(3) KLT	Positive	Court relied on this decision to support entitlement to building permits without the development-plan requirement.
WA No.1290/2019	WA 1290/2019	Positive	Division Bench held entitlement to building permits, cited as Ext.P6; supports petitioners' position.
WPC 5072/2016	5072/2016	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited in exhibits; no explicit treatment in the reasoning.
WPC 37998/2018	37998/2018	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited in exhibits; no explicit treatment in the reasoning.

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 Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 7598 of 2019 (Y) and 8510 of 2019 (K) - Jinto V. Jose v Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath and Geo Paul C.G & Nitsa Vincent v Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath, High Court of Kerala 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 8TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.7598 OF 2019(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JINTO.V.JOSE, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOSE, VADAKKAN HOUSE, CHALAKKAL DESOM, PARAPPUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680552.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-680301.**| |**2**|**THE SECRETARY,**| ||**NANMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**NANMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-680301.**| **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).8510/2019(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 7598 & 8510/19 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 8TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.8510 OF 2019(K)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**GEO PAUL C.G, AGED 37 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**S/O. GEORGE PAUL, CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**NOCHIMA DESOM, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,**| ||**NAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 563**| |**2**|**NITSA VINCENT, AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**W/O. GEO PAUL.C.G., CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**NOCHIMA DESOM, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,**| ||**NAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 563**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.C.A.CHACKO**| ||**SMT.C.M.CHARISMA**| ||**SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NENMANIKKARA,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 301**| |**2**|**THE SECRETARY, NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**| ||**NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 301.**| ||**R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN**| ||**R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN**| ||**R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR**| ||**SRI PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL-GP**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).7598/2019(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 7598 & 8510/19 3 ## **JUDGMENT** I am considering these two Writ Petitions together on account of the analogous nature of the factual circumstances presented and since the reliefs sought for in them are also interlayered with each other. 2. The petitioners in these cases say that they have purchased small extents of land-less than 4 Ares each-and that they have applied for building permits with the Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath which has been arrayed as a respondent in these cases. According to them, however, the Grama Panchayath has declined to issue them the permits requiring that they must first produce a development plan for the property and that this requirement is contrary to the various judgments of this Court including **Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality [2018(3) KLT** **1)** as also Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C)No.8510/2019. They submit that, in fact, Ext.P6 is an inter- WPC 7598 & 8510/19 4 party judgment which was at the instance of the respondent-Panchayath herein and therefore, that they cannot now turn around and say that they will not comply with the directions therein. The petitioners therefore, pray that the respondentGrama Panchayath be directed to issue them building permits in terms of law. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayath submits that the only reason why they are reluctant to grant building permit to the petitioners is because their predecessors-in-interest and various other persons had applied for a building permit under one application with respect to the properties in question along with various other extents-totalling 246.5 cents. He says that this application was thereafter withdrawn, presumably because they became aware that such application would require a development permit and that they thereafter approached the Grama Panchayath with WPC 7598 & 8510/19 5 separate applications, as are mentioned in these Writ Petitions. He says, therefore, that this is suspected to be a camouflage and may not be allowed by this Court. 4. Even when I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayath on the afore lines, it is obvious that all these contentions were specifically considered and dealt with by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in WA No.1290/2019, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8510/2019. As is ineluctable therefrom, these contentions were specifically found against the Panchayath by the learned Bench and the entitlement of the persons like the petitioners to obtain individual building permits were virtually declared. I, therefore, fail to understand how the Grama Panchayath can now refuse to grant permits for the same reasons which have been negatived by the learned Division Bench in Ext.P6 judgment WPC 7598 & 8510/19 6 and cannot, therefore, find favour with such submissions. In the afore situation and being guided by Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C)No.8510/2019 and by **Nafeesa** (supra), I order these writ petitions and direct the Panchayath to consider the applications of the petitioners herein for building permits _de hors_ the requirement of a development plan, after following all necessary and imperative procedure for such purpose, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have only considered and found the entitlement of the petitioners to the grant of a building permit without the requirement of a development plan in this judgment; and therefore, the Panchayath will consider such applications strictly in terms of law and on satisfying themselves that the WPC 7598 & 8510/19 7 petitioners have complied with all other requirements and conditions as per the applicable Statutes and Regulations, including the Building Rules. ## **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 7598 & 8510/19 8 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7598/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS SALE DEED DATED 10/11/2017 OF SRO, NELLAYI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 18/12/2017 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, TRIKKUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 28/2/2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11/7/2016 IN WPC NO.5072/2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17/12/2018 IN WPC NO.37998/2018. WPC 7598 & 8510/19 9 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8510/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S SALE DEED DATED 22/12/2017 OF SRO, NELLAYI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 8/8/2018 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKKUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 12/3/2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11/7/2016 IN WP(C)NO.5072/2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17/12/2018 IN WP(C)NO.37998/2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03/06/2019 IN WA.NO.1290/2019 PETITION TO ACCEPT DOCUMENT.