IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 13341 OF 2023 PETITIONERS:

1 SAJU JOISON AGED 54 YEARS S/O C.C. GEORGE, CHAIKKODATHU HOUSE, EMS ROAD,KALAMASSERY., PIN - 682033

2 SHAGHI SAJU AGED 46 YEARS W/O SAJU, CHAIKKODATHU HOUSE, EMS ROAD, KALAMASSERY, PIN - 682033 BY ADVS.

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)

E.S.FIROS RESPONDENTS:

1 KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR,.P.O., PIN - 682033

2 SECRETARY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., PIN - 682033

3 DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER LSGD PLANNING, OFFICE OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, 4TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030 SRI.APPU.P.S-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order calling for records leading to issuance of Ext. P4 notice and P6 order, and quash the same as illegal and erroneous;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for building permit, without insisting on any layout approval or development permit from the petitioner, within a specific time frame;

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.90 Ares of land in Re-survey No.291/1-79 in Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District coming under the jurisdiction of the respondent Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application for a building permit on 16/3/2023. The 2^nd respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner should procure a development permit/layout approval from the 2^nd respondent, since the property is divided into various plots. The petitioner submitted a reply to Ext.P4 notice. However, the 2^nd respondent refused to consider the same on the ground that a development permit is required for the consideration of the application for building permit. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality [2018 (3) KLT 1] wherein this Court had considered the issue in extenso and had held that unless activity which attracts the definition of 'development of land' is made by the purchaser of a small extent of land, the applications for building permits cannot be rejected on the ground that the original owner of the property or the developer had not obtained development permit in respect of the entire property. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks consideration of the application for building permit without insisting on a development permit.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no person can develop any parcel of land without obtaining a development permit. It is stated that in the instant case, the plot purchased by the petitioner is a part of larger extent of land and therefore, a development permit is required to be made available before an application for building permit can be considered.

5. I have considered the contentions advanced and also taken note of the findings of this Court in the reported judgment in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality as well as in Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner is admittedly owner of small plot of land sold to him. It is evident that there has been no activity which can be defined as 'development of land' at the hands of the petitioner after purchasing the property. The failure of the developer of the land to obtain a development permit or pay fees to the Municipality cannot be a reason