IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 8261 OF 2021 PETITIONERS:

1 SEBASTIN JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF JOSEPH, MUNDANTHADATHIL HOUSE, THELLAKAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686016.

2 ANIT SEBASTIN, AGED 39 YEARS, WIFE OF SEBASTIN JOSEPH, MUNDANTHADATHIL HOUSE, THELLAKAM, THELLAKAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686016.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.V.JOHN MANI SHRI.S.JAYANT SRI.JACKSON JOHNY SHRI.VARGHESE SABU SHRI.SETHULAKSHMI K.K.

SMT.GAYATHRI MENON RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE AND HOUSING, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM-686573.

3 SECRETARY, MEENACHIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAMATTAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686578.

R3 BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 9th day of September, 2021 Petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing Ext.P4 notice and by the inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 reply submitted by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners state that they proposed to construct six residential units in 99.57 Ares of land in Meenachil Village. As per Ext.P2, the petitioners have been granted building permit also. Thereafter, since the construction of six residential units involved development of land, the petitioners submitted Ext.P3 site plan for obtaining Development Permit under Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. The request of the petitioners was not entertained stating that the quantity of earth sought to be removed is excessive and that for construction of residential houses, only normal site levelling work is required. The petitioners were directed to carry out the work on the basis of the Building Permit already issued.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the levelling of the plot would naturally require transportation of ordinary earth for which mineral transit pass will be required from the Department of Geology and only if the Grama Panchayat issues Development Permit, the petitioners will be able to obtain requisite passes from the Geologist.

4. The 3^rd respondent entered appearance and contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the 3^rd respondent stated that the application submitted by the petitioner for Development Permit has not been allowed in view of a finding that the quantity of earth sought to be removed by the petitioners is huge and much excessive than the requisite quantum. In view of the above, there is no scope for issuing a Development Permit since the petitioners can construct the six residential houses after carrying out normal ground levelling work without extraction of ordinary earth.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3^rd respondent.

6. Since the petitioners are constructing six residential houses, which involves subdivision of land into plots, necessarily the petitioners require Development Permit. This crucial fact has not been taken into consideration in Ext.P4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Secretary.

7. In the circumstances, the 3^rd respondent-Secretary is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioners for issuance of Development Permit. If the petitioners submit all necessary documents in support of the application for Development Permit, the Secretary shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month. To enable the Secretary to reconsider the matter, Ext.P4 order is set aside.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE ak