Kerala High Court
P.B.Babu vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2016
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4853 of 2016 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.B.BABU
S/O.BHASKARAN, POZHAMKANDATH HOUSE, PO MANGADU,
PORKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR-680 542.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. PORKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PORKKULAM PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 542.
3. THE SECRETARY
PORKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PORKKULAM PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 542.
4. PRATHAPAN
S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHANAYIL HOUSE, PORKKULAM VILLAGE,
` PORKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 542.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ P KUNJACHAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4853 of 2016 (F)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT 8-3-2013
P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT 19-6-2015
P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT 23-6-2015
4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 6-8-2015 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 10-4-2013 IN
WPC.NO.20204/2012
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 4853 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 4.27 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.500/4 of Porkkulam Village. Petitioner purchased the said property from the 4th respondent by sale deed No.651/13 dated 8.3.2013 of SRO, Akkikkavu. The issue raised is with respect to granting building permit for construction of a building; to the petitioner in the land so purchased which was comprised in one larger extent.
2. Admittedly the petitioner purchased the land from the 4th respondent, who had in his possession and ownership a larger extent of land, which he divided into sub plots and sold to different persons. On submission of WPC.No.4853/2016 : 2 : application for building permit, the same was declined as per Ext.P4 by the Panchayat, for the reason that there is no development plan appended,since there is a sub division of plots from a larger extent.
3. The petitioner challenges the said denial on the ground that it is evident from Exhibit P1 and P3 that the land is "paramba", i.e., "garden land" and in sub dividing the same into plots and selling it to different owners, there is no "development of land" as contemplated under Rule 2(ac) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Building Rules"). It is also submitted that while the larger extent was sub divided into plots, the vendor had in fact provided roads for ingress and egress to various plots and that is very evident, since otherwise the small holders would WPC.No.4853/2016 : 3 : not have purchased the land nor applied for building construction.
4. The Panchayat contends that it is constantly faced with the problem of agricultural lands being converted into garden land by undertaking filling and then selling small sub-divided extents to individuals. The definition of "development of land" as per the Building Rules take in material change in the user of the land and when agricultural land is converted for residential purposes, necessarily there should be a development plan submitted before the local authority and sanction obtained prior to the development; to ensure that the conversion is in accordance with Rule 31 of the Building Rules as also payment of fee for such development to be made to the local authority.
WPC.No.4853/2016 : 4 :
5. Looking at the facts of the instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioners' lands were part of agricultural lands earlier to the purchase by the petitioners. The title deeds would indicate that they were garden land and were sub divided by the vendor into small plots for sale to different individuals. In such circumstance, relying on the judgment produced at Ext.P5, it is directed that the respondent-Panchayat shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit without insisting on any layout or development plan approval and issue the building permit, if the application is otherwise in order, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has only looked into the requirement of a development WPC.No.4853/2016 : 5 : plan and found the same to be not necessary and any other provision of the KPBR 2011 will have to be complied with.
The writ petition is allowed, with the above direction. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge