Vishnu a vs the Secretary

Vishnu a vs The Secretary

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 06, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1494040

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1494040
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice N.Nagaresh
Decided On: Oct 06, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/20774/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu a

Respondent

The Secretary

Excerpt

.....of development permit. though the petitioner submitted ext.p4 reply to ext.p3 communication, the grama panchayat has refused to w.p(c) no.20774 of 2022 3 ] entertain the application as per ext.p5 communication, on the same grounds.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. though notice was served on the respondents, there is no appearance for the respondents.5. the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by ajudgment of this court in philip thomas v. geologist [2021 (5)klt 227] wherein this court has held that the building rules do not provide for issuance of development permit in cases where building construction does not involve subdivision of plots. a development permit is required only when there is development of land by dividing land into plots. in view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to process the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, without insisting for development permit. orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month. n. nagaresh, judge smm/10.10.2022 w.p(c) no.20774 of 2022 4 ] appendix of wp(c) 20774/2022 petitioner exhibitsexhibit p1 true copy of the registered sale deed no. exhibit p2 true copy of the acknowledgement receipt dated 26-4-2022 issued by the 2ndrespondent to the petitioner for building permit. exhibit p3 true copy of the notice no.a7-966/21 dated 16-4-2022 issued by the 1st respondent. exhibit p4 true copy of the reply dated 26-4-2022 submitted by the petitioner to 1st respondent's exhibit p-3 communication exhibit p5 true copy of the communication no. a7- respondent to the petitioner.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20774 OF 2022 PETITIONER VISHNU A AGED 26 YEARS S/O ARAVINDAKSHAN, T.P. HOUSE, MANKURUSSI POST, MANKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 613 BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY V.RAGHUVARAN RESPONDENTS 1 THE SECRETARY KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678 574 2 KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 574. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) No.20774 of 2022 2 ]

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of October, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 0.0203 Hectares (5 cents) of land in Kottayi Grama Panchayat, is before this Court aggrieved by the insistence made by the respondents for production of Development Permit/Layout approval.

2. The petitioner states that he is owner of 5 Cents of land in

Kottayi Grama Panchayat and proposed to construct a residential building. When the petitioner submitted an application for Building Permit, it was acknowledged as per Ext.P2. However, the petitioner has been informed as per Ext.P3 that the petitioner has to obtain a Development Permit from the respondents for issuance of Building Permit.

3. The petitioner states that he is only the owner of a small

plot of land and does not intend to develop the property. Therefore, the respondents cannot insist for production of Development Permit. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to Ext.P3 communication, the Grama Panchayat has refused to W.P(C) No.20774 of 2022 3 ] entertain the application as per Ext.P5 Communication, on the same grounds.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondents, there is no appearance for the respondents.

5. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered by a

judgment of this Court in Philip Thomas v. Geologist [2021 (5)

KLT 227] wherein this Court has held that the Building Rules do not provide for issuance of Development Permit in cases where building construction does not involve subdivision of plots. A Development Permit is required only when there is development of land by dividing land into plots. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to process the application for Building Permit submitted by the petitioner, without insisting for Development Permit. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month. N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/10.10.2022 W.P(C) No.20774 of 2022 4 ] APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20774/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1           TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.
Exhibit P2           TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
                     DATED   26-4-2022    ISSUED   BY  THE   2ND

RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR BUILDING PERMIT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A7-966/21 DATED 16-4-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26-4-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT P-3 COMMUNICATION Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. A7- RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Vishnu a vs The Secretary Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice N.Nagaresh