Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
SIVARAJENDRAN V. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21587 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 27254 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 27884 OF 2021 | WP(C) NO. 7464 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 9012 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 6613 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN, SRI.SABU PULLAN, SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN, SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
For the Respondents: SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI, SHRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004), SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN R., SMT.V.JAYA RAGI, SHRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL), SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN, SPL.GP – K.R. DEEPA
T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN, SC, PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
Building permits must adhere to local regulations, requiring verification of land extent and affording opportunities for affected parties to contest applications before approval.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and 2019 - Writ petitions regarding construction disputes - Common issues in multiple petitions concerning building permits and violations of local self-government regulations and encroachments - Permits questioned based on alleged misrepresentations and incorrect land measurements - Tribunal relied on incomplete records, leading to challenges by neighbors. (Paras 1-20)
(B) The issuance of building permits without adequate inspection or confirming the boundaries of the land is a violation of the established rules that safeguard property rights and ensure fair regulation. (Paras 17-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the validity of the building permits issued to the fifth respondent, claiming encroachment and discrepancies in land measurements leading to illegal constructions without proper enforcement of rules. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revised building permit violated multiple provisions of the applicable building rules and directed reconsideration of the permit application while allowing for input from affected parties. (Paras 19-21)
Issues: The core issues pertained to the legality of the building permits granted, the extent of land in possession of the fifth respondent, and whether due process was followed in their issuance. (Paras 17-19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proper inspection and verification of land extent before granting permits, highlighting that permits issued during ongoing disputes lacked procedural fairness. Adjustments to permits should only follow thorough inspection as mandated by law. (Paras 17-20)
Result: The court set aside the revised building permit and ordered reconsideration by the local authority after affording opportunity for a hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. verification of land extent and permit validity (Para 3 , 5 , 8 , 12 , 19) |
| 2. counterclaims regarding permits and property rights (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 3. court's requirement for adherence to building rules (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.
WP(C) No.21587 of 2021
2. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to inspect the premises in question along with a competent Municipal Engineer and to verify the actual extent of land of the 5th respondent. The petitioner also challenges the final order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 17-09-2021.
3. Petitioner is the immediate neighbour on the western side of the property held by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent has obtained a development permit and building permit, having shown the property to have an extent of 5.69 Ares in Sy. No 170/3-2 of the Pallichal Village. There is an inclusion made in the document that Sy.No.170/3-3, having an extent of 81 sq. meters, is also a land belonging to the 5th respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that no such land exists. Of the land 4.88 Ares, 83 sq. meters have been acquired for the widening of the State highway, and what remains with the 5th respondent is only 4.05 Ares.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, contending that in Ext.R5(t) approved plan and Ext.R5(s) Building permit, it is clearly stated that the extent of land as per field measurement is only 4.27 Ares equivalent to 10.5469 cents, and the extent of land as per records is 4.98 Ares equivalent to 12.3006 cents and the permit is granted with respect to the available extent of land. The respondent states that the construction is strictly within the boundaries of the property identified in the settlement deed.
WP(C) No.27254 of 2021
5. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 development permit issued to the 5th respondent and Ext.P9 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, asserting that the entire process was flawed, based on misrepresentations, and ignored statutory provisions. The petitioner contends that the tribunal’s reliance on incomplete land records and its failure to verify the actual extent of land render its order invalid and further states that the permit and construction must be based on verified facts, and the existing illegal construction must be stopped and rescinded.
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, raising contentions similar to those submitted by the 5th respondent in WP(C) 21587/2021.
WP(C) No.27884 of 2021
7. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to quash and call for records leading to Ext.P11 common order of the Tribunal and for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to refer the complaint of the petitioner to the technical expert committee.
8. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent encroached upon the petitioner’s property, demolished part of her boundary, and constructed a brick wall (Ext.P6). The petitioner filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction (Ext.P7), supported by a detailed site inspection report (Ext.P8). The husband of the petitioner also challenged the building permit, and the tribunal issued an interim stay order (Ext.P10). Following the same, the Panchayat issued a stop memo (A3/2382/2021), which was challenged by the 5th respondent, leading to a common order by the tribunal (Ext.P11).
9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, raising contentions similar to those submitted by the 5th respondent in WP(C) 21587/2021.
WP(C) No.7464 of 2022
10. The petitioner’s contention is that Ext. P1 building permit was issued to the 7th respondent for the construction of a commercial building by showing the extent of land as 5.69 ares (14.250 cents), th
